Legal Opinion
Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. The Gillette Company, Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. The Gillette Company
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Decided April 7, 1982No. 81-1403, 81-1426PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BOWNES, Circuit Judge.
These appeals arise from a patent infringement action brought by Carter-Wallace, Inc., against The Gillette Company. The patent-in-suit covered the formula for an aerosol antiperspirant underarm spray called ARRID EXTRA DRY (Arrid). After a jury-waived trial, the district court, 531 F.Supp. 840, in a comprehensive well-written opinion found and ruled that Carter-Wallace’s patent was invalid for obviousness and lack of criticality. The court specifically rejected Gillette’s claim of anticipation. It also ruled that if the patent were valid, Gillette would be liable for…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Albert M. Spound v. Mohasco Industries, Inc., Albert M. Spound v. Mohasco Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1976
- Edison Electric Light Co. v. United States Electric Lighting Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1892
- Dale Electronics, Inc. v. R. C. L. Electronics, Inc., Dale Electronics, Inc. v. R. C. L. Electronics, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1973
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Codex Corporation v. Milgo Electronic Corporation, Codex Corporation v. Milgo Electronic CorporationCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1983
- Brown-Bridge Mills, Inc. v. Eastern Fine Paper, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1983
- Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1992
- Diomed, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2006
- Ab Iro v. Otex, Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1983
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.