Legal Opinion
Union Carbide Corporation v. Borg-Warner Corporation and Sund-Borg MacHines Corporation, Defendants
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided January 27, 1977No. 75-2263PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MILLER, Judge.
Plaintiff has appealed from the judgment (unpublished) of the United States District Court in favor of defendants that Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 3,268,636 (“636 patent”) 1 has not been infringed; that said claim is invalid over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (anticipation) and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness); and that the 636 patent is invalid in its entirety for failure to disclose the best mode contemplated to carry out the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. 2 We affirm on the best mode issue, so it is unnecessary to reach the sections…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Frederick H. Norton v. Lawrence E. CurtissCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
- Application of Newsome W. GayCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
- Karl Ziegler, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Phillips Petroleum Company, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1973
- Kingsland v. DorseySupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Sewall v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Spectra-Physics, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Coherent, Inc., Appellant/crossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- McGill Incorporated v. John Zink Company, McGill Incorporated, Cross-Appellant v. John Zink Company, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Plastic Container Corporation v. Continental Plastics of Oklahoma, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1979
- In re SherwoodCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1980
- Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken, Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1977
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.