Cavitron Corporation v. Ultrasonic Research Corporation, Sonic Industries Corporation, John C. Adams
This text of 426 F.2d 295 (Cavitron Corporation v. Ultrasonic Research Corporation, Sonic Industries Corporation, John C. Adams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
426 F.2d 295, 165 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 754, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9080, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cavitron-corporation-v-ultrasonic-research-corporation-sonic-industries-ca5-1970.