Legal Opinion
Laurent Regimbal v. Peter Scymansky, Laurent Regimbal v. Lloyd Brulotte, Laurent Regimbal v. Melvin J. Newhouse
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided July 20, 1971No. 23976_1PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JAMES M. CARTER, Circuit Judge.
Appellants in case #23947 filed this action against appellees for infringement, contributory infringement, and inducing infringement of appellants’ Regimbal Patent #2,699,172. The district court held that the Regimbal patent was invalid for obviousness under 35 U. S.C. § 103. The court’s findings indicate, in the alternative, that if the patent were valid, then appellees’ actions constituted infringement. No reference to these findings appears in the judgment. We affirm the district court’s determination that the Regimbal patent is invalid and, therefore, do not…
2Cases cited14 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
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- United States v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Hotchkiss v. GreenwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Hewlett-Packard Company v. Tel-Design, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1972
- Kamei-Autokomfort, a Corporation of Germany, and Superior Industries, Inc., a Corporation v. Eurasian Automotive Products (Formerly Gus Mozart)Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977
- Deere & Company v. Sperry Rand CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- Tveter v. AB Turn-O-MaticCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
- Oakley B. Palmer, an Individual Doing Business as Palmco Engineering Company v. Orthokinetics, Incorporated, a Wisconsin CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.