Racing Strollers, Inc. v. Tri Industries, Inc.

878 F.2d 1418, 11 U.S.P.Q.2d 1300 (1989)

From our private database of 47,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Racing Strollers, Inc. v. Tri Industries, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
878 F.2d 1418, 11 U.S.P.Q.2d 1300 (1989)

  • Written by Eric Miller, JD

Facts

In April 1986, Racing Strollers, Inc. (Racing) filed a divisional application—i.e., an application made to preserve a claim that was split off from a parent application—for a design patent on a baby-stroller frame. The parent application, filed in October 1984 and later abandoned, had been for a utility patent. The design patent issued in September 1988. Racing Strollers brought an infringement suit against Tri Industries, Inc. (Tri) (defendant) in federal district court. Racing Strollers admitted to selling strollers with the patented design more than a year before the April 1986 application for the design patent. However, Racing Strollers argued that the on-sale bar did not apply, because the April 1986 application was entitled to the October 1984 filing date. Tri cited an earlier case, In re Campbell, 212 F.2d 606 (C.C.P.A. 1954), as standing for the proposition that a design-patent application could not be a division of a non-design-patent application. This holding was contradicted by other caselaw. Unsure how to proceed, the trial judge certified the question to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Rich, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 966,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 966,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,500 briefs, keyed to 1,007 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
  • AI-generated podcast version of every brief — listen on the go, between classes, or whenever reading isn’t an option. New

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 966,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,500 briefs - keyed to 1,007 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Patent

Key Terms

  • Certified QuestionAn issue of law as to which one court seeks guidance from another, e.g., a federal court seeking guidance from a state court regarding an issue of state law or a lower court seeking guidance from a higher court in the same jurisdiction.
  • Design PatentA grant of legal protection for the ornamental design of an article, but not its functionality.
  • Patent Specification[35 U.S.C. § 112(a)] A written description of the invention as well as the method and process of making and using the invention. Under the enablement requirement, the description in the specification must be clear enough to enable others to make and use the invention.
  • On-Sale BarA statutory bar to patentability that applies when, before the critical date of the invention (i.e., one year prior to the effective filing date of the patent application), the invention was the subject of a commercial offer for sale and was ready for patenting.
  • Patent InfringementUnder the general infringement section of 35 U.S.C. § 271, a person who imports, sells, offers to sell, or uses in the United States without authorization a patented invention, process, machine, or manufacture is chargeable with infringement of the patent.

Understand your casebook readings in seconds

Use our case briefs to comprehend your casebook readings faster, supplement your notes and outlines, and outshine your peers in class.

Get instant access to over 47,500+ expert-written case briefs in a searchable database keyed to 1,007 law school casebooks.

Case book preview
Start your free 7-day trial