Intellectual Property Insights from Fishman Stewart
Mini Article – Volume 24, Issue 5
Share on Social
More than One Way to Slice a Potato?
By Kristyn Webb
The dispute began in 2016 when chip-maker Simplot sued rival chip-maker McCain, alleging that McCain’s spiral-cut “Twisted Potato” design infringed Simplot’s design patent US D640036 for a “Spiral Potato Piece.” A few months later, McCain counter sued alleging that Simplot’s spiral-cut “Sidewinders” infringed McCains’ design patent US D720916 for a “Root Vegetable Product.” McCain also alleged that Simplot’s chips infringed its utility patent US 6821540 for a “Process for Treating Vegetables and Fruit Before Cooking” involving the use of a “pulse electric field” to soften fruits and vegetables before they are cut.
Fast forward several years, and after numerous motions, responses, and replies, to January 2024: the court hearing the case in Idaho (the potato capital of the world), has denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, and concluded that the case should go to trial.
The ‘540 patent refers to passing an electric current through the fruit or vegetable before cutting and cooking. The parties disagree about whether Simplot’s method of partially heating the potatoes in oil (“parfrying”) falls within the meaning of “cooking” or whether the patent only covers products that are totally cooked and ready to eat.
Regarding the competing design patents, the court concluded that it was best left for a jury to decide whether the parties’ respective design patents and the accused products are similar enough for any findings of infringement. So, after several years of litigation, 120 docket entries, and a 141-page ruling, it appears the case is (finally) headed to trial. We hope the jury will at least get a chance to sample the accused products!
Kristyn Webb is the Group Leader of Fishman Stewart’s Copyright Practice Group, and holds a Master’s Degree in Copyright Law from King’s College London.
Published March 22, 2024
Related Content from Fishman Stewart
Before a brand makes headlines for the right reasons, it helps to make sure someone else doesn’t already own the name. A recent dispute involving Tesla offers a timely reminder that a great brand name can become an expensive problem.
One second became a surprisingly complicated piece of technology, intellectual property and sports governance in the 2026 collegiate season opening game.
With the end of Hot Dog Season quickly approaching, now is a good time to reflect on the innovative new growth that made this season what it is today.
The Ninth Circuit just reversed course on Jack Daniel's dilution claim against the 'Bad Spaniels' dog toy, vacating the injunction and ruling that parody humor alone doesn't prove reputational harm. Here's what the decision means for brand owners pursuing tarnishment claims.
The trading card industry is booming again - and what makes this moment different is not who holds the cards, literally and figuratively, but how the trading card space is rapidly evolving.
Imagine paying millions of dollars for the naming rights to a stadium—only to have your brand hidden behind a giant white tarp. That’s exactly what happened to Levi Strauss during the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
As we celebrate our nation’s birthday on July 4th, many communities are replacing or supplementing traditional fireworks with drone-based light shows - which prompts the question of intellectual property protection.
The fun internet trend of promoting "dupes" has officially crossed the trademark line and everyday content creators are finding themselves in the crosshairs of multimillion-dollar corporate lawsuits.
The FIFA World Cup is global football (or soccer) at its highest level. It is, however, also one of the most carefully crafted displays of intellectual property (IP) in the world.
Trademark owners are often cast as villains when they send cease-and-desist letters. But in trademark law, failing to enforce rights can sometimes create bigger problems than enforcing them.
IDENTIFYING, SECURING AND ADVANCING CREATIVITY®
