Ingersoll-Rand Company, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Brunner & Lay, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
CLARK, Circuit Judge:
Invalidity for obviousness 1 is the broad subject of this patent appeal. A subsidiary issue is joined on the trial court’s application of the doctrine of file wrapper estoppel. The imitator who was successful in the court below cross-appealed from the court’s refusal to award it attorney’s fees. 2 Because we reverse the trial court’s determination of obviousness and its invocation of an estoppel against the patentees, the attorneys’ fee issue is eliminated; but the case must be remanded for an accounting.
United States Letters Patent No. 3,424,479 issued to J. D. Ditson…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- United States v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
- James C. Hobbs v. United States of America, Atomic Energy CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1971
- Stamicarbon, N v. V. Escambia Chemical CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1970
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Louis W. Parker, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. Motorola, Inc., Defendant-Appellant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
- Kenneth White v. Mar-Bel, Inc., and Mr. Dan MarshlackCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
- Continental Oil Company, Cross-Appellee v. Jimmy R. Cole, D/B/A Jim R. Cole & Associates and Cole Development Co. Inc., Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
- Rohm and Haas Co. v. Dawson Chemical Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1983
- Harrington Manufacturing Co., Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Idas B. White, Defendant-Appellee-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1973
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.