Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corporation

134 F.3d 1473 (1998)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P owns the '244 patent for a unit of a sectional sofa in which two independent reclining seats face in the same direction. Sectional sofas are typically organized in an L-shape with 'arms' at the exposed ends of the linear sections. They were able to contain two recliners only if they were located at the exposed ends of the linear sections. The recliners faced in different directions and were impracticable as one or both user must turn their heads to watch the same television set. Those sitting at opposite ends of a sectional sofa were not able to engage in intimate conversation. P's patent placed a 'console' between two recliners which face in the same direction. The console 'accommodates the controls for both reclining seats,' thus eliminating the need to position each recliner at an exposed end of a linear section. P sued D for patent infringement when D sold sectional sofas having two recliners facing in the same direction. The recliners were separated by a seat that has a back cushion that may be pivoted down onto the seat, so that the seatback may serve as a tabletop between the recliners. D was granted a transfer because of its earlier-filed action seeking a declaration that the patent was invalid and not infringed. The district court granted D's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement but denied its motions for summary judgment of invalidity and unenforceability. Both parties appealed.