Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Stewart-Warner Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. The City of Pontiac, Michigan, and American Sign & Indicator Corporation, Cross-Appellants
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided September 2, 1983No. 81-1611, 81-1631Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCornelia G. Kennedy, Circuit Judge
I concur in full in the majority’s opinion with respect to the ’335 patent and the denial of attorney’s fees. However, I would affirm the judgment of the District Court that the claims of the ’926 patent are fully anticipated by the Kansas City scoreboard and are therefore barred under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). I agree with most of the legal propositions stated by the majority. My disagreement is primarily with their application of those principles on three specific and dispositive points.
First, I cannot agree that the usual presumption of validity afforded by 25 U.S.C. § 282 is enhanced because…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- United States v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Kropa v. RobieCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1951
- Schnading Corporation v. Gaines Manufacturing Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1974
- Oliver F. Marston v. J. C. Penney Company, Inc., Oliver F. Marston v. J. C. Penney Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1965
- Olympic Fastening Systems, Inc. v. Textron, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1974
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.