Legal Opinion
Super Mold Corporation v. Clapp's Equipment Division, Inc., Clapp's Equipment Division, Inc. v. Super Mold Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided September 11, 1968No. 21752_1PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ELY, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Super Mold Corporation filed a complaint in the District Court alleging infringement by appellee Clapp’s Equipment Division of a patent owned by Super Mold. Clapp’s moved for a separate trial on the issue of whether the patented device had been placed in public use or put on sale in this country more than one year prior to the date of the application for the patent, so that the patent would be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). 1 Clapp’s then filed a motion for summary judgment and moved for the award of attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. 2 Following a hearing…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Elizabeth v. Pavement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Smith & Griggs Manufacturing Co. v. SpragueSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Park-In-Theatres, Inc. v. PerkinsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1951
- Cataphote Corporation, a Corporation v. De Soto Chemical Coatings, Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1966
- Koehring Company v. National Automatic Tool Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1966
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- The Robbins Company v. Lawrence Manufacturing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1973
- Maurice A. Garbell, Inc. v. Boeing CompanyDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1973
- Thomas E. Pickering v. Orval Holman, Thomas E. Pickering v. Orval HolmanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1972
- Proler Steel Corporation, Inc. v. Luria Brothers & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1969
- SSP Agricultural Equipment, Inc. v. Orchard-Rite Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.