Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Conte v. Jakks Pacific, Inc., No. 14-1153 (Fed. Cir. June 11, 2014)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 14-1153
Decided
June 11, 2014
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit SHELLY CONTE AND CINDY REICHMAN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

JAKKS PACIFIC, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

2014-1153

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in No. 1:12-cv-00006-LJO-GSA, Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill.

Decided: June 11, 2014

LENDEN F. WEBB, Webb & Bordson, APC, of Fresno, California, argued for plaintiffs-appellants.

JONATHAN HONIG, Feder Kaszovitz LLP, of New York, New York, argued for defendant-appellee. Of counsel on the brief was WILLIAM THOMAS MCLAUGHLIN, II, Lang, Richert & Patch, of Fresno, California.

Before DYK, WALLACH, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

22 CONTE v. JAKKS PACIFIC, INC.

The judgment is affirmed on the grounds that (1) the asserted claim 9 of United States Patent No. 6,494,457 (the ’457 patent) would have been obvious and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit plaintiffs to amend the complaint to include claim 1 of the ’457 patent.

AFFIRMED

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Conte v. Jakks Pacific, Inc., No. 14-1153 (Fed. Cir. June 11, 2014).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-ca13-14-01153-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01153-0

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.