Woodland Trust v. Flowertree Nursery, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
148 F.3d 1368 (1998)
Woodland (plaintiff) sued Flowertree (defendant) for infringing the ‘440 patent, which claimed a method of and apparatus for preventing freezing of ground plants. Flowertree alleged that the patent was invalid as anticipated or obvious, specifically stating that the claimed method was known by the Flowertree owners many years prior to the ‘440 patent’s filing date. Numerous witnesses provided evidence supporting Flowertree’s allegations that the claimed invention had been previously known by others, and Woodland countered with its own witnesses. The District Court, reasoning that these many witnesses were not perjuring themselves, held that the invention was anticipated and found the patent invalid. Woodland appealed to the Federal Circuit.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Newman, C.J.)
What to do next…
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 687,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
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 687,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 43,000 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.