Legal Opinion
Hiester v. Miller's Super Markets, Inc.
District Court, D. Colorado
Decided February 23, 1966No. Civ. A. Nos. 9045, 9047Published
1Opinion of the Court
WILLIAM E. DOYLE, District Judge.
The above-entitled actions, consolidated for the purposes of this motion for summary judgment, arise under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq. Plaintiff Hiester, assignee of Schweitzer Patent No. 2,-860,885 on a child’s seat for nesting carriers, alleges infringement of that patent by the defendants. In their motion for summary judgment defendants assert the record at this stage reveals that plaintiff’s patent is invalid as to claims 1, 5, 6, 9, and 10. They rely on four patent office proceedings, hereinafter described, in…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. BrennerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. LaddDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1964
- Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. David L. Ladd, Commissioner of PatentsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1965
- McCoy v. PfeifferCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1943