Legal Opinion
Corning Glass Works, in No. 15923 v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, in No. 15924
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided October 20, 1967No. 15924_1PublishedCited by 45 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
GERALD MeLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge.
On November 8, 1963, plaintiff,' Corning Glass Works, filed a complaint charging defendant, Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, with infringement of both product and process claims of its Stookey patent. 1 In answer, defendant denied the infringement charge and further asserted that plaintiff’s patent was invalid because: 1) of indefiniteness, 2) the method claims covered inoperative species, and 3) the claims were not patentable over the prior art. Defendant also charged unenforceability by reason of fraud on the Patent Office and included a…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Sessions v. RomadkaSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company v. Berkley and Company, Inc., E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company v. Berkley and Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1980
- Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Congoleum CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1979
- Karl Ziegler, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Phillips Petroleum Company, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1973
- Plastic Container Corporation v. Continental Plastics of Oklahoma, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1979
- SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2003
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.