Legal Opinion
Aerotec Industries of Calif. v. Pacific Scientific Company
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 31, 1967No. 20510PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge:
This is an appeal from a judgment holding certain claims of appellee’s patents valid and infringed. The patents are Pfankuch, No. 2,845,233, claims 7 and 9, 1 and Cushman, No. 2,845,234, claims 1 and 5. 2 We reverse.
Appellants’ device is described in the Spielman patent, No. 2,982,492. Pfankuch was issued July 29, 1958, Cushman on the same day, Spielman on May 2, 1961. Strange to say, neither Pfankueh n°r Cushman nor any of the prior art cited in either of them is cited as prior art in Spielman.
All three devices have the same stated objective, described in somewhat…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Brown v. PiperSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Knapp v. MorssSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Gilbert Shaw and Polymers, Inc. v. E. B. & A. C. Whiting CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1969
- Jack Winter, Inc. v. Koratron Company, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 1974
- Kamei-Autokomfort, a Corporation of Germany, and Superior Industries, Inc., a Corporation v. Eurasian Automotive Products (Formerly Gus Mozart)Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977
- Cool-Fin Electronics Corp. v. International Electronic Research Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974
- Geo. J. Meyer Manufacturing Co., a Wisconsin Corporation v. San Marino Electronic Corporation, a California CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1970
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.