Connection lost
Server error
Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc. And Unique Beverage Dispensers, Inc. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A patent for a beverage dispenser that faked having a large reservoir of juice was challenged as lacking utility because it was deceptive. The court held that an invention’s ability to imitate another product is a valid utility, and policing deception is for other agencies, not patent law.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that an invention’s capacity to deceive or imitate another product does not, by itself, render it invalid for lack of utility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patent system is not the arbiter of commercial morality or deceptive trade practices.
Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc. And Unique Beverage Dispensers, Inc. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Juicy Whip, Inc. held a patent for a “post-mix” beverage dispenser designed to look like a “pre-mix” dispenser. Post-mix systems mix syrup and water on demand, while pre-mix systems store the final beverage in a large, visible display bowl. Pre-mix dispensers are visually appealing to consumers but present sanitation challenges. The patented invention featured a post-mix system with a prominent, transparent bowl containing a simulated, non-dispensed liquid that mimicked the appearance of the beverage. This design was intended to create the visual impression of a pre-mix dispenser to stimulate impulse buys, while offering the hygienic and operational benefits of a post-mix system. Juicy Whip sued Orange Bang for infringement. The district court granted summary judgment for Orange Bang, holding the patent invalid for lack of utility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court reasoned that the invention’s sole purpose was to increase sales through deception and that an invention improving only the salability of a product through imitation lacks utility.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does an invention lack the requisite utility for patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101 merely because it is designed to imitate another product for the purpose of increasing salability, potentially deceiving consumers?
No. The court reversed the district court’s summary judgment of invalidity. An Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does an invention lack the requisite utility for patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101 merely because it is designed to imitate another product for the purpose of increasing salability, potentially deceiving consumers?
Conclusion
This decision clarifies that the utility requirement under § 101 is a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea co
Legal Rule
An invention is "useful" under 35 U.S.C. § 101 if it is Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint o
Legal Analysis
The Federal Circuit held that the district court applied an incorrect standard Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An invention is not unpatentable for lack of utility under 35