Legal Opinion
Honeywell, Inc. v. Diamond
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided September 24, 1980No. Civ. A. 79-2283PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
GESELL, District Judge.
Following denial of its application by the Patent and Trademark Office for a patent on a two-wire time-controlled thermostat, plaintiff invoked 35 U.S.C. § 145 (1976) and pressed its claims before this Court in a trial de novo. The Court has filed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law separately and submits this Memorandum to amplify the legal issues that have been fully briefed and argued by the parties.
Plaintiff copied its central claims from the patent application of Perkins, who had also developed a two-wire, time-controlled thermostat. If plaintiff is…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Kendall v. WinsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1859
- Brenner v. MansonSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Alexander P. Deseversky v. Edward J. Brenner, Commissioner of PatentsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1970
- Farrand Optical Co., Inc. v. The United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Austin Powder Co. v. Atlas Powder Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1983
- Responsive Innovations, LLC v. Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2012