The Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc. (535 U.S. 826)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 3, 2002 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 535 U.S. 826 · 122 S. Ct. 1889
- Decided
- June 3, 2002
- Term
- October Term 2001
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Scalia
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case, we address whether the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over a case in which the complaint does not allege a claim arising under federal patent law, but the answer contains a patent-law counterclaim. I Respondent, Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., is a manufacturer of patented fans and heaters. In late 1992, respondent sued a competitor, Duracraft Corp., claiming that Duraeraft’s use of a “spiral grill design” in its fans infringed respondent’s trade dress. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found for Duracraft, holding that Vornado had no protectable trade-dress rights in the grill design. See Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc. v. Duracraft Corp., 58 F. 3d 1498 (1995) (Vornado I). Nevertheless, on November 26,1999, respondent lodged a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission against petitioner, The Holmes Group, Inc., claiming that petitioner’s sale of fans and heaters with a spiral grill design infringed respondent’s patent and the same trade dress held unprotectable in Vornado I. Several weeks later, petitioner filed this action against respondent in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that its products did not infringe respondent’s trade dress and an injunction…
Excerpt of a 14,524-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.