Legal Opinion
Catanzaro v. Masco Corp.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided October 29, 1976No. Civ. A. 4780, 75-103 and 75-169PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
STAPLETON, District Judge.
I. BACKGROUND
These three infringement actions involve Patent No. 2,906,875 (September 29, 1959), issued to Edward T. Molinaro (hereinafter the “Molinaro patent”). The subject matter of this patent is a type of signal-seeking receiver. Signal-seeking receivers, as the term is broadly used, are devices which scan a frequency spectrum in search of a signal and stop when a signal being broadcast is encountered.
According to the plaintiffs, the Molinaro patent covers at least those signal-seeking receiver devices which:
1. have a power-operated means of tuning…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois FoundationSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- White v. DunbarSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- I. T. S. Rubber Co. v. Essex Rubber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Dethlefs v. Beau Maison Development Corp.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1987
- In Re: The Upjohn Company Antibiotic Cleocin Products Liability Litigation. Juanita Stavro v. The Upjohn CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1981
- Edward T. Molinaro and Anthony P. Catanzaro v. Fannon/courier Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Cady v. JohnsonUtah Supreme Court · 1983
- Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH v. Dart Industries, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1982
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.