William A. Clarke

I'll research this entity before writing the profile.

Let me verify the inventor's identity and patent ownership context.

Let me check for additional litigation history and the outcome of the tracked case.

Note on entity type: The record name "William A. Clarke" is an individual inventor, not a company. No corporate entity, headquarters, employee count, revenue, or public ticker could be verified in public sources, and none should be assumed.

Overview. USPTO filings list William A. Clarke as a resident of Erie, Pennsylvania, and name him as inventor on several US patents. He appears in the patent record as an individual patent owner; no assignee corporation, parent, or licensing vehicle is identified. Size, founding date, and ownership status are therefore not applicable/not verifiable.

Inventions. His patents cover juvenile and toy products: US 5,487,705 (infant "baby carousel" rotating seat), US 5,078,636 (bubble-making toy glider, co-invented with J. P. Lantzy and C. S. Cook), and US 6,038,711 ("Potty training device," issued March 21, 2000), covering a miniature-toilet training chair with a simulated-flush handle, reward cubby, and trophy. He is an inventor-patentee rather than an operating manufacturer; a 2008 court ruling refers to a licensee of the '711 patent, indicating the invention was licensed out, but the licensee was not identified in the sources reviewed.

Litigation posture. The database shows exactly one tracked case, filed by Clarke as plaintiff and none as defendant — consistent with a solo inventor enforcing his own patent rather than a corporate NPE asserting an acquired portfolio or an operating company under attack. The single suit, William A. Clarke v. Fisher-Price, Inc. (No. 3:07-cv-00421, W.D. Wis., filed Aug. 2, 2007), asserted claims 1 and 15 of the '711 patent against Fisher-Price's "Fun to Learn Potty." W.D. Wisconsin is not a plaintiff-friendly patent venue of the Eastern District of Texas type. Some opinions render the name "Clark."

Case context. Judge Shabaz's 2008 summary-judgment rulings found the accused device infringed claims 1 and 15, rejected anticipation by the prior art (including the "Cabbage Patch potty"), and found genuine factual disputes on obviousness; Clarke's own summary-judgment motion on § 287(a) marking was denied for an inadequate affidavit. A 1979 W.D. Pennsylvania copyright suit by an Erie, Pennsylvania plaintiff named William A. Clarke (the "Stick Mitt" glove case) is likely the same individual, but that identification is not confirmed.