Benchcraft, Inc. v. Broyhill Furniture Industries, Inc., 88-1345

• Decision Date: 08 March 1989
• Docket Number: No. 88-1345,88-1345
• Citation: 871 F.2d 1096
• Parties: Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.8(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order. BENCHCRAFT, INC., Riverside Furniture Corp., and Hickory Hill Furniture Co., a/k/a Crestline Furniture Co., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BROYHILL FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

Page 1096

871 F.2d 1096

10 U.S.P.Q.2d 2036

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.8(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.

BENCHCRAFT, INC., Riverside Furniture Corp., and Hickory

Hill Furniture Co., a/k/a Crestline Furniture Co., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BROYHILL FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 88-1345.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 8, 1989.

Before FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judge, NICHOLS, Senior Circuit Judge, and NIES, Circuit Judge.

FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judge.

DECISION

The declaratory judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi that U.S. Design Patent No. 274,485 ('485 patent) is unenforceable because the patentee had engaged in inequitable conduct during the prosecution of the patent application is vacated, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings in accordance with our opinion.

OPINION

After a lengthy bench trial, the district court held that the appellant, Broyhill Furniture Industries, Inc. (Broyhill), had engaged in inequitable conduct by failing to disclose to the Patent and Trademark Office two items that the court described as "highly material prior art." BenchCraft, Inc. v. Broyhill Furniture Indus., Inc., 681 F.Supp. 1190, 1219, 7 USPQ2d 1257, 1279 (N.D.Miss.1988). These items were (1) photographs that Gunter, the president of Broyhill, had taken of a sofa he saw at a London furniture store, and upon which the designer relied in making the design claimed in the '485 patent, and (2) a sofa made by a competitor of Broyhill, the BenchCraft 4540. The court further ruled that Broyhill's "failure to disclose this prior art either to Fitzpatrick [the patent attorney who prosecuted the application for the '485 patent] or to the PTO leads the court to conclude that the plaintiffs have proven an intent to mislead the PTO." Id. at 1210, 7 USPQ2d at 1272.

It is unclear whether the district court's finding of intent was (a) an inference the court drew from its conclusion that Broyhill and its personnel were grossly negligent in failing to disclose the Gunter photographs and the BenchCraft 4540 sofa or, (b) an independent...