I can't wait for oral argument in this one: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66672045/gorge-design-group-llc-v-meaning-xuansheng/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc
In the meantime, here are the briefs: https://www.scribd.com/document/615575243/Gorge-Design-v-Xuansheng-Fed-Cir-briefs
#ScheduleA #GorgeDesign #FederalCircuit #UtilityPatents #Trademarks #Copyrights
#schedulea #gorgedesign #federalcircuit #utilitypatents #trademarks #copyrights
And if you want to know more about how at least some plaintiffs are using the Schedule A model, see the briefs in this currently-pending Federal Circuit case: https://www.scribd.com/document/615575243/Gorge-Design-v-Xuansheng-Fed-Cir-briefs
#schedulea #litigation #gorgedesign
I'm curious what the #patent people think:
Is it frivolous to assert a claim for infringement of a utility patent that claims an apparatus with "a plurality of threads" when the accused product (apparently undisputedly) contains only a single thread?
https://www.scribd.com/document/615575243/Gorge-Design-v-Xuansheng-Fed-Cir-briefs
#patent #patents #litigation #schedulea #gorgedesign