Legal Opinion
Frank W. Egan & Company and William H. Willert v. Modern Plastic MacHinery Corp
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided February 1, 1968No. 16446_1PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KALODNER, Circuit Judge.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Did the District Court correctly apply the controlling legal test of “obviousness” of Section 103 of the Patent Act of 1952, 35 U.S.C.A., 1 in holding, 2 in the instant patent infringement action, that Claims 1 and 4 of Patent No. 2,734,226 were invalid for lack of invention and obviousness in the light of the prior art?
The mooted patent for an “Injection Molding Apparatus” was issued to the plaintiff William H. Willert on February 14, 1956. The patent relates to a plasties injection molding machine for plasticizing and delivering to a mold plastics…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- United States v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc. v. Kollsman Instrument CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1967
- Ric-Wil Co. v. E. B. Kaiser Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1950
- BG Corporation v. Walter Kidde & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1935
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- John K. Rains v. Cascade Industries, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1968
- Philips Electronic and Pharmaceutical Industries Corp. v. Thermal and Electronics Industries, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1971
- Rengo Co. Ltd. And Simon Container MacHinery Limited, in No. 80-2556 v. Molins MacHine Company, Inc., in No. 80-2557Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1981
- Tokyo Shibaura Electric Co. Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1977
- Hadco Products, Inc. v. Walter Kidde & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1972
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.