Cluster 239400 (1956)
green
· 105 citation events
across 31 courts.
Showing the 27 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1956 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
195619912026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
The Brown-Bridge Mills, Inc. v. Eastern Fine Paper, Inc., the Brown-Bridge Mills, Inc. v. Eastern Fine Paper,… (1983)
See California Research Corp., supra, 356 F.2d at 820 ; Helene Curtis Industries, supra, 233 F.2d at 152.
green
Brown-Bridge Mills, Inc. v. Eastern Fine Paper, Inc. (1983)
See California Research Corp., supra, 356 F.2d at 820 ; Helene Curtis Industries, supra, 233 F.2d at 152.
green
Scandiamant Aktiebolag v. Commissioner of Patents (1974)
Id. at 214, 215. 30 . 170 U.S.P.Q. 213 , 444 F.2d 599 (1971). 31 .
Especially in the light of this consideration, we think the holding of indefiniteness is required.” Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 233 F.2d 148, 160 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 879 , 77 S.Ct. 101 , 1 L.Ed.2d 80 (1956).
Helene Curtis Industries v. Sales Affiliates, supra, 233 F.2d at 152.
It is ably explained in Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 233 F. 2d 148, 152 (2 Cir.1955) as follows: 31 "* * * the mere location of the optimum conditions of use for a known composition of matter does not constitute `invention' so as entitle the discoverer thereof to a monopoly.
It is ably explained in Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 233 F. 2d 148, 152 (2 Cir.1955) as follows: “ * * * the mere location of the optimum conditions of use for a known composition of matter does not constitute ‘invention’ so as entitle the discoverer thereof to a monopoly.
It is true that the Supreme Court has stated that “(a)n invention must be capable of accurate definition, and it must be accurately defined, to be patentable,” United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 1942, 317 U.S. 228, 237 , 63 S.Ct. 165, 170 , 87 L.Ed. 232 , and this Court recently stated that “ * * * the requirement of the Act for definiteness in the statement of claims must be strictly construed,” Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Sales Affiliates, supra, 233 F.2d at pa…
green
Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Gillette Co. (1981)
Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 233 F.2d 148, 155-56 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 879 , 77 S.Ct. 101 , 1 L.Ed.2d 80 (1956).
green
Swift Chemical Co. v. Usamex Fertilizers, Inc. (1980)
But in determining the existence or nonexistence of such physical phenomena as demonstrate a critical advance over the prior art, we think the court is entitled to such aid as derives from any relevant technique, — even one not developed until after the invention at issue.” Helene Curtis, supra, at 154-55.
green
Ritter v. Rohm & Haas Company (1967)
Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 233 F.2d 148, 154-155 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 879 , 77 S.Ct. 1011 (1956).
green
Rolls-Royce Limited, Derby, England, a British Company v. The United States. United Aircraft Corporation, Def… (1965)
See, e. g., Chesterfield v. United States, 159 F.Supp. 371 , 141 Ct.Cl. 838, 842 (1958); Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 233 F.2d 148, 159 (C.A.2, 1956), cert, denied, 352 U.S. 879 , 77 S.Ct. 101 , 1 L.Ed.2d 80 (1956).
green
Dow Chemical Co. v. Halliburton Co. (1985)
Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 233 F.2d 148, 153 (2d Cir.1956) (quoting Kwik Set v. Welch Grape Juice Co., 86 F.2d 945, 947 (2d Cir.1936)).
green
Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Gillette Co. (1982)
The line of cases beginning with Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., et al. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., et al., 233 F.2d 148, 152 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 879 , 77 S.Ct. 101 , 1 L.Ed.2d 80 (1956) and Kwik Set, Inc. v. Welch Grape Juice Co., 86 F.2d 945, 947 (2d Cir. 1936), persuaded me that, in order to be patentable, a combination, such as the one described in the patent in suit, involving known ingredients performing their usual functions must achieve a result differen…
green
Indiana General Corp. v. Krystinel Corp. (1969)
Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., supra at 371, 58 S.Ct. 899 ; Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 233 F.2d 148, 153 (2d Cir. 1956); Kwik Set v. Welch Grape Juice Co., supra. Inasmuch as it is the opinion of this Court that both the specification and claim of the patent in suit (as well as those contained in the 1954 parent application) were not only insufficiently descriptive but, moreover, misrepresentative as to the extent of the inventive advance, the …
green
Chemithon Corporation v. Procter & Gamble Company (1968)
And it is not disputed that this minimum is based on chemical fact, cf. Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 233 F.2d 148, 154 (2d Cir. 1956), namely that below that limit the product tends to become discolored or degraded.
green
Pullman Inc. v. ACF Industries Inc. (1967)
That objective, however useful the final result, can be achieved by ‘patient experiment’.” Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 233 F.2d 148, 152 (2d Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 879 , 77 S.Ct. 101 , 1 L.Ed.2d 80 (1956) (patent for hairwaving chemical composition invalidated).
green
Rolls-Royce Ltd. v. United States (1964)
See, e.g., Chesterfield v. United States, 141 Ct. Cl. 838, 842 , 159 F. Supp. 371 (1958); Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 233 F. 2d 148, 159 (C.A. 2, 1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 879 (1956).
green
Jones Knitting Corp. v. Morgan (1964)
Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 233 F.2d 148, 152 (2 Cir. 1956), cert. den. 352 U.S. 879 , 77 S.Ct. 101 , 1 L.Ed.2d 80 .
green
George R. Cogar v. William E. Schuyler, Jr., Commissioner of Patents, and Sperry Rand Corporation (1972)
“Respondent does not contend that it was denied any opportunity to present for the Commission’s consideration any matter of fact or law in connection with its application or that the Commission has not given all matters submitted by.it due and full consideration.” Id., 337 U.S. at 284 , 69 S.Ct. at 1107 ; see also Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 233 F.2d 148, 164 (2d Cir. 1956).
See, e.g., Helene Curtis Indus. v. Sales Affiliates, 233 F.2d 148 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 879 , 77 S.Ct. 101 , 1 L.Ed.2d 80 (1956).
green
Diapulse Corp. v. Birtcher Corp. (1966)
See, e.g., Helene Curtis Indus. v. Sales Affiliates, 233 F.2d 148 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 879 , 77 S.Ct. 101 , 1 L.Ed.2d 80 (1956).
See Helene Curtis Industries v. Sales Affiliates, D.C., 121 F.Supp. 490, 496 , affirmed 2 Cir., 233 F.2d 148 , 152.
See, e.g., Helene Curtis Indus. v. Sales Affiliates, 233 F.2d 148 , 154 (2d Cir.1956) (patent invalid for indefiniteness where “nothing in the four corners of the patent defines” the relevant range), limited in Andrew Corp., 847 F.2d at 823 n. 4 (district, court misread Helene Curtis as requiring precise numerical range; “[i]n *1189 ...
green
Bourns, Inc. v. Dale Electronics Inc. (1969)
See Helene Curtis Industries v. Sales Affiliates, 233 F.2d 148 , 156 [2d Cir.] cert. denied, 352 U.S. 879 , 77 S.C.t. 101, 1 L.Ed.2d 80 [1956]; United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. Brooklyn Wood Heel Corp., 77 F.2d 263, 264 [2d Cir. 1935].
green
Teleflex Incorporated v. American Chain & Cable Co. (1967)
Oelbaum v. Lovable Company, 211 F.Supp. 594 (S.D.N.Y.1962), aff’d, 322 F.2d 1022 (2d Cir. 1963) ; see Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 233 F.2d 148 (2d Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 879 , 77 S.Ct. 101 , 1 L.Ed.2d 80 (1956).