Legal Opinion
Tidewater Patent Development Company, Incorporated v. K. M. Kitchen and Virginia M. Kitchen, Partners Trading as K. M. Kitchenbeauty Supply Company
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided February 14, 1967No. 10463PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ALBERT V. BRYAN, Circuit Judge.
A patent for a permanent hair waving solution and method was upheld, and declared infringed, in the District Court at the suit of the owner, Tidewater Patent Development Company, Inc. against the partnership of K. M. Kitchen Beauty Supply Company. Defendants appeal and we reverse, finding the patent invalid.
In our judgment the patent in controversy (i. e. the six claims in dispute), known as No. 323, not only is void as duplicative of Tidewater’s earlier patent, known as 710, but 710 aside, invention therein is virtually disavowed. It is duplicative because its…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Miller v. Eagle Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Triplett v. LowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1897
- Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Butte & Superior Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1919
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois FoundationSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Rohm & Haas Company v. Crystal Chemical Company and Joe C. EllerCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Plastic Container Corporation v. Continental Plastics of Oklahoma, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1979
- True Temper Corporation, and Cross-Appellee v. Cf&i Steel Corporation, and Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1979
- Maurice A. Garbell, Inc. v. Boeing CompanyDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1973
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.