Harry J. Locklin and Elmer J. Brant, General Partners Doing Business Under the Firm Name of Radiant Color Company v. Switzer Brothers, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Per curiam
This case has already been before the court twice. On the first occasion we upheld the District Court’s determination that the Kazenas patent of appellee was valid and infringed. Locklin v. Switzer Bros., 299 F.2d 160 (9th Cir. 1961). On the second occasion we reviewed the determination of the District Court that appellants, in marketing a new resin (one different from that originally held to infringe), were again infringing and guilty of contempt. On that second occasion we remanded the case to the District Court for determination of a specific factual issue which we held to be crucial to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Locklin v. Switzer Bros.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1961
- Locklin v. Switzer Bros.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1965
3Cited by3 opinions
- Nelson Tool and MacHine Co., Inc. v. Wonderland Originals, Ltd.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1980
- Locklin v. Day-Glo Color Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1972
- Harry P. Locklin and Elmer J. Brant, General Partners, Dba Radiant Color Company v. Day-Glo Color Corp., Harry P. Locklin and Elmer J. Brant, General Partners, Dba Radiant Color Company v. Day-Glo Color Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1972