The Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. The Berkline Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
134 F.3d 1473 (1998)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Many sectional sofas are configured in an L-shape with a reclining seat at either end of the sofa. These reclining seats face different directions and often make it difficult for users to converse or watch a television program without shifting or moving. The Gentry Gallery (“Gentry”) (plaintiff) patented a unit of sectional sofa in which a console was placed between two independent reclining seats facing the same direction, known as the ‘244 patent. The console housed the controls for the reclining seats, eliminating the need to place each recliner at an exposed end of the sofa. In 1991, Gentry filed suit against The Berkline Corporation (“Berkline”) (defendant) alleging that it had infringed on the ‘244 patent by manufacturing and selling sectional sofas that also had two reclining seats facing the same direction, separated by a seat which had a back cushion that could be pivoted down and serve as a tabletop between the recliners. In the Berkline invention, the controls for the recliners were not placed within a console. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted Berkline’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, but denied its motions for summary judgment of invalidity and unenforceability, holding that the ‘244 patent was not invalid and thus enforceable. Berkline appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lourie, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
