Legal Opinion
Bristol Locknut Company, Plaintiff/appellee/cross-Appellant v. Sps Technologies, Inc., Defendant/appellant/cross-Appellee
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 24, 1982No. CA 80-5234, 80-5236, 80-5240 and 80-5241PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FARRIS, Circuit Judge:
BACKGROUND
The validity and infringement of two patents and a trademark held by SPS Technologies, Inc. are at issue. The Skidmore Patent No. 3,208,494 claims and describes what is known in the industry as a prevailing torque locknut. 1 A locknut differs from a free spinning nut in that it requires greater effort to remove it from a bolt. Because locknuts will not vibrate loose, they are widely used in the automotive industry in critical places on vehicles. The Burt Patent No. 2,955,301 describes and claims a tool for converting certain free spinning nuts into locknuts by…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Lear, Inc. v. AdkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Wham-O-Mfg. Co., a Corporation v. Paradise Manufacturing Co., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Novametrix Medical Systems, Inc. v. BOC Group, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Rca Corporation v. Data General Corporation, Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1989
- Lula Belle Hull, of the Estate of R.D. Hull, Deceased, M.H. Parry, and H.A. Binford v. Brunswick CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1983
- Rite-Nail Packaging Corp. v. Berryfast, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
- Wang Laboratories, Inc. v. Oki Electric Industry Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1998
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.