green
Positive treatment
2.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1951 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1951
1988
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Royal-Mcbee Corporation v. Smith-Corona Marchant, Inc.
On June 28, 1951, however, relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 1950, 340 U.S. 147 , 71 S.Ct. 127 , 95 L.Ed. 162 , and Crest Specialty v. Trager, 1951, 341 U.S. 912 , 71 S.Ct. 733 , 95 L.Ed. 1349 , Smith-Corona moved in the district court for leave to file an amended counterclaim praying for a declaratory judgment of the patent’s invalidity for want of invention.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Oriental Foods, Inc. v. Chun King Sales, Inc.
(2×)
See also Crest Specialty v. Trager, 341 U.S. 912 , 71 S.Ct. 733 , 95 L.Ed. 1349 , where the Supreme Court, by per curiam opinion, summarily held invalid a patent previously upheld by the district and circuit courts. 4 This Court has only recently reaffirmed its long held position that the question of novelty and invention is one of fact as to which the conventional clearly erroneous test is applicable.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Oriental Foods, Inc., a Corporation v. Chun King Sales, Inc., and Jeno F. Paulucci, Chun King Sales, Inc., and Jeno F. Paulucci v. Oriental Foods, Inc., a Corporation
(2×)
See also Crest Specialty v. Trager, 341 U.S. 912 , 71 S.Ct. 733 , 95 L.Ed. 1349 , where the Supreme Court, by per curiam opinion, summarily held invalid a patent previously upheld by the district and circuit courts. 4 This Court has only recently reaffirmed its long held position that the question of novelty and invention is one of fact as to which the conventional clearly erroneous test is applicable.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Crest Specialty, a Limited Partnership
v.
Trager, doing business as Topic Toys
v.
Trager, doing business as Topic Toys
No. 446.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 23, 1951.
Clarence E. Threedy argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner. Max R. Kraus argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Sidney Neuman.
Cited by 11 opinions | Published
Certi-orari, 340 U. S. 928, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.[*913] Per Curiam: The judgment is reversed. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U. S. 147.
April 23, 1951. Clarence E. Threedy argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner. Max R. Kraus argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Sidney Neuman.