Legal Opinion

US PHILIPS CORPORATION v. National Micronetics, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided January 27, 1976No. 71 Civ. 921PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

WARD, District Judge.

This is an action alleging infringement of U. S. Patent No. 3,024,318 to Duinker et al. for a “Glass Gap Spacer for Magnetic Heads” (hereinafter the “Duinker patent”) and U. S. Patent No. 3,246,383 to Peloschek et al. for a “Method of Manufacturing Magnetic Heads with Bonding Gap — Filling Materials” (hereinafter the “Peloschek patent”). For the reasons hereinafter stated, the Court holds the Duinker patent invalid and the Peloschek patent valid and infringed.

I. The Parties, Jurisdiction and Fen ue

Plaintiff U. S. Philips Corporation (hereinafter “Philips”) is a…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  3. Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
  4. United States v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  5. Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Rohm and Haas Co. v. Dawson Chemical Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1983
  2. A. Stucki Co. v. SchwamDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1986
  3. T.A. Pelsue Co. v. Grand Enterprises, Inc.District Court, D. Colorado · 1991
  4. Interconnect Planning Corp. v. FeilDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1982
  5. FMC Corp. v. Manitowoc Co., Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1987

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API