Spee-Flo Manufacturing Corp. v. Gray Co.
District Court, S.D. Texas
1Opinion of the Court
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
CONNALLY, Chief Judge.
In an effort to avoid the finding of direct infringement of Claims 1, 2, 3, and 8 embodied in the memorandum opinion, D.C., 237 F.Supp. 616 (adopted as Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law) of October 14,1964, defendant on November 3, 1964, filed its “Motion for the Correction and Clarification of Court’s Memorandum and Opinion of October 14, 1964.” While the case had theretofore been fully argued and briefed, further argument was had at defendant’s request December 15, 1964, and additional briefs have been filed and considered.
While I continue…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Williams Manufacturing Co. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Spee-Flo Manufacturing Corp. v. Gray Co.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1964
3Cited by7 opinions
- Wells Mfg. Corp., a Wisconsin Corporation v. Littelfuse, Inc., a Texas CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1976
- Gray Company, Inc. v. The Spee-Flo Manufacturing CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1966
- Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Exxon CorporationDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1974
- The Spee-Flo Manufacturing Corp. v. Binks Manufacturing Co.District Court, D. Texas · 1967
- Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Lake Country Manufacturing, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1996
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.