Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corporation, Premix, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
ARCHER, Circuit Judge.
Rudkin-Wiley Corporation (Rudkin-Wiley) appeals the judgment by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut holding U.S. Patent 3,241,876 (’876 patent or Saunders’ patent) invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (1982 and Supp. III 1986) or, if valid, not infringed by Uniroyal, Inc. or its successor in interest, Premix, Inc. (collectively, Uniroyal). We affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, reverse-in-part and remand.
BACKGROUND
This case was initiated by Uniroyal in 1975 by the filing of a declaratory judgment action to have the ’876 patent declared…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- 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
- 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
- Hybritech Incorporated v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by167 opinions
- Smithkline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Laboratories Corporation, Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1989
- Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- 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
- Lawrence B. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
- C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
162 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.