Legal Opinion
Demaco Corporation v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Limited and F. Von Langsdorff Bauverfahren Gmbh
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided June 21, 1988No. 86-1439PublishedCited by 149 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
F. Von Langsdorff Bauverfahren GmbH and F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd. (together “Langsdorff”) appeal the judgment1 in favor of declaratory judgment plaintiff Demaco Corporation and counterclaim defendants Coastal Contracting Corporation, Paver Systems, Inc., and R.I. Lampus Company (together “Demaco”). The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, held that claims 9, 13, and 29-33 of United States Patent No. 4,128,357 (“the Barth patent”) are invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, that all of the claims are…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Hazelwood School District v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- American Hoist & Derrick Company, Cross-Appellee v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by149 opinions
- Continental Can Company Usa, Inc. And Continental Pet Technologies, Inc. v. Monsanto Company, Hoover Universal, Inc. And Johnson Controls, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- Hewlett-Packard Company, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Bausch & Lomb IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
- In Re David C. PaulsenCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
- Wbip, LLC v. Kohler Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2016
- Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
144 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.