This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

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.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.