Legal Opinion
Duplan Corporation v. Deering Milliken, Inc.
District Court, D. South Carolina
Decided January 2, 1973No. Civ. A. 71-306PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HEMPHILL, District Judge:
On February 4, 1972, plaintiff Throwsters, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, filed in this court a motion for summary judgment of invalidity as to two separate United States patents. The first motion seeks an order of this court declaring invalid and void United States Patent 3,382,656, filed January 3, 1966, and issued May 14, 1968, in the name of Henri Crouzet, (and assigned to Chavanoz) for “False Twist Frames and Method for Texturing Synthetic Filaments,” including all claims of the said patent, on the theory that the…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance MacHinery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food MacHinery & Chemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Duplan Corporation v. Deering Milliken, Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1974
- Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken, Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1977
- The Duplan Corporation v. Deering Milliken Research CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1974