green
Positive treatment
2.2 score
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Furminator, Inc. v. Kim Laube & Co., Inc.
See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F.Supp. 948 (S.D.Fla.1972), aff'd, 479 F.2d 1328 (5th Cir.1973).
discussed
Cited "see"
Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc.
See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F.Supp. 948, 965 (S.D.Fla.1972), aff'd., 479 F.2d 1328 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 , 94 S.Ct. 66 , 38 L.Ed.2d 115 (1973). 21 The Court finds that Smith acted intentionally because Wagenseil was initially withheld and later disclosed with a large number of other allegedly prior art references.
discussed
Cited "see"
Dow Chemical Co. v. Halliburton Co.
See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F.Supp. 948, 964-65 (S.D.Fla.1972), aff'd, 479 F.2d 1328 (5th Cir.1973), relied upon by Halliburton, is not factually analogous to the Harriman reissue proceeding.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp.
See e.g., Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F.Supp. 948 , aff'd, 479 F.2d 1328 (5th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 , 94 S.Ct. 66 , 38 L.Ed.2d 115 (1973) (inequitable conduct found where patentee mischaracterized a reference and then buried it as the thirteenth of thirteen references submitted to *546 the USPO); Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co., Inc., 887 F.Supp. 1444 (N.D.Ind.1992), aff'd w’out op. 11 F.3d 1072 (Fed.Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1128 , 114 S.Ct. 2136 , 128 L.Ed.2d 865 (1994).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Borden, Inc. v. Occidental Petroleum Corporation
See also Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F.Supp. 948, 968-969 (S.D.FIa.1972), aff'd, 479 F.2d 1328 (5th Cir. 1973) (district court opinion adopted). 33.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Associates Discounts Corporation
v.
Louis Ray
v.
Louis Ray
73-1009.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jun 22, 1973.
Published
ASSOCIATES DISCOUNTS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Louis RAY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 73-1009.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
June 22, 1973.
Louis D. Smith, Monroe, La., George E. Herendeen, South Bend, Ind., for plaintiff-appellant.
Hewitt B. Johnson, Don H. Johnson, Robert C. Cudd III, Monroe, La., for defendant-appellee.
Before GEWIN, THORNBERRY and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
1
For reasons adequately stated in the opinion of the district court, 359 F.Supp. 73 (W.D.La.1973), the judgment is affirmed.