Legal Opinion
Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
District Court, N.D. Alabama
Decided March 8, 1983No. Civ. A. 81-C-0496-MPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT
CLEMON, District Judge.
Introduction
This case involves the validity and alleged infringement of United States Letters Patent No. 3,459,199 (‘the ’199 patent’), issued in 1969 to plaintiff Jerry F. Connell 1 for a “teasing and unsnarling implement” for hair. Connell claims that various hair curlers sold by defendant Sears, Roebuck and Company (“Sears”) infringe its patent. The case was tried to a jury, which made “special written findings upon each issue of fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 49(a). The jury’s findings indicate that…
2Cases cited44 opinions
- Larry Bonner v. City of Prichard, AlabamaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1981
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Jerry F. Connell, Gary F. Burns and Conelco, Inc., Appellants/cross-Appellees v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., a Corporation, Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983