Nos. 2005-1330, 2005-1582.

476 F.3d 1337 (2007)

DIPPIN' DOTS, INC. and Curt D. Jones, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Thomas R. MOSEY, Dots of Fun, International Laser Expressions, Inc. (also known as I.L.E., Inc.), and Nicholas Angus, Defendant/Counterclaimant-Cross Appellant, and Frosty Bites Distribution LLC, Defendant-Appellee, and Frosty Bites Distributor of Florida, Inc., Frosty Bites Distributor of Georgia, Inc., Frosty Bites of Michigan, Inc., J & J Concessions of New Jersey, Inc., Frosty Bites Ice Cream Company, LLC, Frosty Bites South, Inc., International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions, Frosty Bites of New York, LLC, and Frosty Bites Ice Cream Development, LLC, Defendants, v. F. Robert Esty, Jr., Barry Jay Bass, Victor Bauer, Jack Miller, Daniel Kilcoyne, Shawn P. Kilcoyne, and Daniel Dopko, Counterclaim Defendants, and Frosty Bites, Inc. (now known as Mini Melts, Inc.), Counterclaim Defendant-Cross Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

February 9, 2007.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

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.

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.

Before MAYER, RADER, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

This is a patent infringement and antitrust case dealing with a unique ice cream product. Plaintiffs Dippin' Dots, Inc. and Curt D. Jones (collectively "DDI") appeal from the district court's claim construction and summary judgment of noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,126,156 ("the '156 patent") and from the judgment following jury trial that all claims of that patent are obvious, that the patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct...


Uncompromising quality. Enduring impact.
Your support ensures a bright future for independent legal reporting.

As you are aware we have offered this as a free subscription over the past years and we have now made it a paid service.Look forward to your continued patronage.



Read it with your Leagle account.
Sign in to continue

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases