Legal Opinion

Philad Co. v. Vanatta

District Court, S.D. California

Decided June 30, 1939No. 1111—MPublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

McCORMICK, District Judge.

At the conclusion of the hearing of this suit on the merits, the court, upon the record and in conformity with the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 1938, in Johnson Co. v. Philad Co., 96 F.2d 442, held the patent in issue to be valid, and also under the aforesaid binding appellate decision and the evidence here, concluded that claims 2, 3, 4 and 5 of reissue patent No. 18,841 are valid unless at least one of three special defenses interposed in this action, and not considered in the Johnson appeal, has been established. These defenses are,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Carbice Corp. of America v. American Patents Development Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
  2. Leitch Manufacturing Co. v. Barber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
  3. Waxham v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  4. Fullerton Walnut Growers' Ass'n v. Anderson-Barngrover Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1908
  5. Johnson Co. v. Philad Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Vanatta v. Philad Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1940

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API