Cavitron Corporation v. Ultrasonic Research Corporation, Sonic Industries Corporation, John C. Adams

Fifth Circuit

Cavitron Corporation v. Ultrasonic Research Corporation, Sonic Industries Corporation, John C. Adams

426 F.2d 295, 165 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 754, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9080

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided May 25, 1970·No. 28028_1·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises out of a patent infringement suit brought by Cavitron claiming infringement of stated claims in three separate patents. The district court concluded that the claims in suit *296 were valid and infringed, and that Cavitron did not violate the false marking statute. 35 U.S.C.A. § 292. The detailed opinion of the district court is reported: Cavitron Corporation v. Ultrasonic Research Corporation, S.D.Fla., 1969, 301 F.Supp. 293.

We are in agreement with the result reached by the district court. The findings of fact are not clearly erroneous nor is there any misapplication of law. The district court expressly dealt in its opinion with the nonobviousness requirement for determining patentability. In our view, the court fully understood the non-obviousness test, and that, contrary to the contention of appellants, it was applied to the full scope and content of the prior art. 35 U.S.C.A. § 103. On the nonobviousness test, see Anderson’s-Black Rock v. Pavement Salvage Company, 1969, 396 U.S. 57, 90 S.Ct. 305, 24 L.Ed.2d 258, 262; Graham v. John Deere Co., 1966, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 86 S.Ct. 884, 15 L.Ed.2d 545, 550.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises out of a patent infringement suit brought by Cavitron claiming infringement of stated claims in three separate patents. The district court concluded that the claims in suit *296 were valid and infringed, and that Cavitron did not violate the false marking statute. 35 U.S.C.A. § 292. The detailed opinion of the district court is reported: Cavitron Corporation v. Ultrasonic Research Corporation, S.D.Fla., 1969, 301 F.Supp. 293.

We are in agreement with the result reached by the district court. The findings of fact are not clearly erroneous nor is there any misapplication of law. The district court expressly dealt in its opinion with the nonobviousness requirement for determining patentability. In our view, the court fully understood the non-obviousness test, and that, contrary to the contention of appellants, it was applied to the full scope and content of the prior art. 35 U.S.C.A. § 103. On the nonobviousness test, see Anderson’s-Black Rock v. Pavement Salvage Company, 1969, 396 U.S. 57, 90 S.Ct. 305, 24 L.Ed.2d 258, 262; Graham v. John Deere Co., 1966, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 86 S.Ct. 884, 15 L.Ed.2d 545, 550.

Affirmed.

Cavitron Corporation v. Ultrasonic Research Corporation, Sonic Industries Corporation, John C. Adams, 426 F.2d 295, 165 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 754, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9080 (5th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

426 F.2d 295 (Cavitron Corporation v. Ultrasonic Research Corporation, Sonic Industries Corporation, John C. Adams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related