United States Federal Circuit

In a patent infringement and antitrust case dealing with the ice cream product, Dippin Dots, a judgment for defendants is affirmed in part as to findings of noninfringement, that all claims of the patent were obvious, and that the patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during prosecution. However, the judgment is reversed in part as to a finding that plaintiff violated antitrust laws where there was insufficient evidence that the patent that had been procured through fraud on the Patent Office.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/09/2007
• Published 02/09/2007

Judges

• GAJARSA, Circuit Judge., Before MAYER, RADER, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Daniel J. Warren, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, of Atlanta, GA, argued for plaintiffs-appellants, Dippin Dots, Inc. and Curtis D. Jones.   With him on the brief were Candice C. Decaire, Erin C. Witkow, and Troy R. Covington. of counsel was Todd Stockwell, Stockwell & Associates, of Lexington, KY.


• For Appellees:
  
• Robert G. Oake, Jr., Oake Law Office, of Allen, Texas, and Rudolf O. Siegesmund, Siegesmund & Associates, of Dallas, TX, argued for defendants-cross-appellants Thomas R. Mosey et al., defendant/counterclaimant-cross appellant Nicholas Angus, and counterclaim defendant-cross appellant, Frosty Bites, Inc. (now known as Mini Melts, Inc.)., Keith E. Broyles, Alston & Bird LLP, of Atlanta, GA, argued for defendant-appellee.   With him on the brief were Stacey A. Mollohan and William R. Hubbard.