green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
3.4 score
“the claims made in the patent are the sole measure of the grant”
Treatment trajectory · 1963 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1963
1994
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ab Iro v. Otex, Inc.
the claims made in the patent are the sole measure of the grant
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cues, Inc. v. Polymer Industries, Inc.
The Court concluded that impermissible “reconstruction of a patented entity, comprised of unpatented elements, is limited to such true reconstruction of the entity as to ‘in fact make a new article’ [cit] after the entity, viewed as a whole, has become spent.” Id. at 346, 81 S.Ct. at 604 . 5 The Court in Aro held that replacement of the fabric used in a convertible top did not infringe the combination patent covering the entire convertible top.
discussed
Cited "see"
Structure Probe, Inc. v. Franklin Institute
Among the reasons for this determination are the following: (1) defendant was the first SEM service operating within a considerable distance of Philadelphia, and necessarily had a natural monopoly over that business in any alleged Delaware Valley market; see, Union Leader Corp. v. Newspapers of New England, Inc., 284 F.2d 582, 584 (1st Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 833 , 81 S.Ct. 747 , 5 L.Ed.2d 744 , reh. denied, 365 U.S. 890, 81 S.Ct. 1026 , 6 L.Ed.2d 201 (1961); see also, Venzie Corp. v. United States Mineral Prod.
discussed
Cited "see"
George Harrison Flynn v. United States
See Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301, 306 , 81 S.Ct. 653, 656 , 5 L.Ed.2d 670 , rehearing denied 365 U.S. 890 , 81 S.Ct. 1024 , 6 L.Ed.2d 201 (1961), where the court said: “Plainly enough, the intention of the district judge was to impose the maximum sentence of twenty-five years for aggravated bank robbery, and the formal defect in his procedure should not vitiate his considered judgment.” The inadvertent reference in the 4/20/67 Memorandum to the offense in Count II as being a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (b) (rather than § 2113(a)) was at the most harmless error.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Reginald Lush
v.
Commissioner of Education of New York
v.
Commissioner of Education of New York
683.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 24, 1961.
Francis G. Hessney for appellant., Charles A. Brind for appellee., Max G. Morris for Board of Education Central School District No. 1, intervenor-appellee.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Citer courts: D. South Carolina (1)
Per Curiam.
The motions to dismiss are granted and the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.