Legal Opinion
Penn International Industries v. Pennington Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided September 1, 1978No. Nos. 77-2142, 77-3501PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge.
We consolidated these appeals to consider two challenges to Patent No. 3,778,852 (airframe water bed) held by Penn International Industries (Penn).
In No. 77 — 2142 Penn sued Pennington Corporation, a water bed manufacturer, and several of its retailers for infringement in District Court for the Northern District of California. Among its defenses, Pennington alleged that the patent was invalid for obviousness. The court found the patent valid and infringed, and on appeal we affirmed most of the judgment1 but remanded for further consideration of the obviousness…
2Cases cited13 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
- Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Saf-Gard Products, Inc. v. Service Parts, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Richard Lawrence Stevenson v. Sears, Roebuck & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Famolare, Inc. v. Edison Bros. Stores, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 1981
- Velo-Bind, Inc. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- Robert Sarkisian v. Winn-Proof Corp., William A. Werner, and Wer-Nel Enterprises, Inc., DefendantsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- Penn International Industries, Incorporated, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross v. New World Manufacturing, Inc., Defendants-Appellees/crossCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.