Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Associates
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
904 F.2d 677, 14 U.S.P.Q.2d 1942 (1990)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Wilson (plaintiff) sued David Geoffrey & Associates (DGA) (defendant) and another party, Dunlop, each for infringing the ‘168 patent, which claims a golf ball with a particular dimple configuration on the ball surface. Among the prior art cited during prosecution was a very similar golf ball, the Uniroyal Ball, that varied in dimple arrangement by a small fraction of an inch, as well as a British patent that disclosed a manner of dividing the surface of a ball into shapes that determine the placement of the dimples in a manner similar to Wilson. The DAG/Dunlop balls did not have a dimple configuration exactly the same as the ‘168 patent, but varied slightly. At trial, the jury found that four of the defendants’ balls infringed the ‘168 patent under the doctrine of equivalents, and the defendants appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rich, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.
