green
Positive treatment
2.3 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 1968 · 3 courts ·
…after careful consideration of the record, the arguments and the briefs of counsel, we are persuaded that the patent claims are invalid for obviousness in the light of the prior art for the reasons fully discussed in the opinion of the district court.
at p. 498
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1964 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1964
1995
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "but see"
Malsbary Manufacturing Co. v. Ald, Inc.
But see Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd. v. Bendix Aviation Corporation, 218 F. Supp. 1, 23-24 (D.Md.1963), aff’d 327 F.2d 497 (4th Cir.), cert. den. 379 U.S. 826 , 85 S.Ct. 53 , 13 L.Ed.2d 36 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd. v. United States
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed per curiam, stating: "After careful consideration of the record, the arguments and the briefs of counsel, we are persuaded that the patent claims are invalid for obviousness in the light of the prior art for the reasons fully discussed in the opinion of the District Court." 327 F. 2d 497, 498 (1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 826 , 85 S.Ct. 53 , 13 L.Ed.2d 36 . 3 Relying upon the Fourth Circuit's decision, the United States moved for summary judgment as to Patent Nos. '960 and '697.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd. v. United States
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed per curiam, stating: “After careful consideration of the record, the arguments and the briefs of counsel, we are persuaded that the patent claims are invalid for obviousness in the light of the prior art for the reasons fully discussed in the opinion of the District Court.” 327 F. 2d 497, 498 (1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 826 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Congoleum Industries, Inc. v. Armstrong Cork Company
See, Carter—Wallace, Inc. v. United States, 449 F.2d 1374 (Ct.Cl.1971); see also, the discussion of “most favored licensee” provisions in Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd. v. Bendix Aviation Corp., 218 F. Supp. 1, 51 (D.Md.1963), aff’d per curiam 327 F.2d 497 (4th Cir. 1964). 20 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
TECHNOGRAPH PRINTED CIRCUITS, LTD., and Technograph Printed Electronics, Incorporated, Appellants,
v.
BENDIX CORPORATION, Appellee
v.
BENDIX CORPORATION, Appellee
9085_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jan 17, 1964.
Walter J. Blenko, Pittsburgh, Pa. (John W. Avirett, II, Baltimore, Md., Walter J. Blenko, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa., M. Victor Leventritt, New York City, Piper & Marbury, Baltimore, Md., and Blenko, Hoopes, Leonard & Buell, Pittsburgh, Pa., on brief), for appellants., Harold J. Birch and Edward S. Irons, Washington, D. C. (Benjamin C. Howard, Baltimore, Md., William W. Beckett, Hy-attsville, Md., Edward F. McKie, Jr., Washington, D. C., Miles & Stoekbridge, Baltimore, Md., and Irons, Birch, Swindler & McKie, Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellee.
Haynsworth, Boreman, Bryan.
Cited by 38 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM.
After careful consideration of the record, the arguments and the briefs of counsel, we are persuaded that the patent claims are invalid for obviousness in the light of the prior art for the reasons fully discussed in the opinion of the District Court. Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd. v. Bendix Aviation Corp., D.C. Md., 218 F.Supp. 1.
Affirmed.