Ransburg Electro-Coating Corp. v. Ionic Electrostatic Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge:
The defendant has appealed from an order holding it in contempt of an in-junctive order entered in a patent case. The contempt finding is premised upon a finding that certain devices for use in electrostatic spray painting systems are the equivalent of certain other devices previously found to infringe the plaintiff’s patents and that the sale and use of the new devices were proscribed by the terms of the injunction. In light of the prior art, which the patentee has no right to appropriate, we think the finding erroneous.
Plaintiff’s patents cover paint feeding…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Binks Manufacturing Company, Etc. v. Ransburg Electro-Coating Corporation, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1960
- Ransburg Electro-Coating Corp. v. Proctor Electric Company, Inc., and Ionic Electrostatic CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1963
- Ransburg Electro-Coating Corp. v. Proctor Electric Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1962
- Gray Company, Inc. v. The Spee-Flo Manufacturing CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1966
- Ransburg Electro-Coating Corp. v. Proctor Electric Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1965
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Ksm Fastening Systems, Inc. v. H.A. Jones Company, Inc. And Erico Jones CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Ransburg Electro-Coating Corp. v. Spiller & Spiller, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1973
- Diamond International Corporation v. WalterhoeferDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1968
- Marston v. JC Penney CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1971
- Ransburg Corp. v. Automatic Finishing Systems, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1976
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.