Home/Federal Circuit/Great Northern Corporation v. Davis Core & Pad Company, Inc.

Great Northern Corporation v. Davis Core & Pad Company, Inc.

782 F.2d 159, 228 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 356, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 19965
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedJanuary 6, 1986
DocketAppeal 85-2485
StatusPublished
Cited by43 cases

This text of 782 F.2d 159 (Great Northern Corporation v. Davis Core & Pad Company, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Great Northern Corporation v. Davis Core & Pad Company, Inc., 782 F.2d 159, 228 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 356, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 19965 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Opinion

RICH, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from the April 24, 1985, judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, 226 USPQ 541, holding valid and infringed all 4 claims of United States Patent No. 4,195,732 (’732 patent), filed February 28, 1978, for “Supporting and Spacing Member For Web Material Rolls,” originally assigned to Great Northern Corp. (Great Northern) and Presto Products, Inc. (Presto), by Davis Core & Pad Co., Inc.’s (Davis Core) support member (Rollride'r). Davis Core was also held liable to Great Northern for treble damages, yet to be assessed, together with pre-judgment interest, costs, and attorney fees because Davis Core’s infringement was willful. We affirm.

Background

The ’732 patent discloses a molded expanded polystyrene foam support for shipping rolls of web material such as cellophane. The support has indentations for receiving rolls and recesses in the side portions of those indentations and elsewhere allegedly to prevent the support from cracking during transportation by imparting flexibility to the support. The published Order of the trial court sets forth the claims in full together with extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law, all of which will be better understood when read in connection with the following drawings from the patent-in-suit and explanation thereof.

*162

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

Related

Sentius International, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.
78 F. Supp. 3d 967 (N.D. California, 2015)
Norian Corporation v. Stryker Corporation, Defendant-Cross
363 F.3d 1321 (Federal Circuit, 2004)
Festo Corporation v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., A/K/A Smc Corporation, and Smc Pneumatics, Inc.
234 F.3d 558 (Federal Circuit, 2000)
Northlake Marketing & Supply, Inc. v. Glaverbel, S.A.
72 F. Supp. 2d 893 (N.D. Illinois, 1999)
National Presto Industries, Inc. v. The West Bend Company, Defendant/cross-Appellant
76 F.3d 1185 (Federal Circuit, 1996)
California Medical Products, Inc. v. Tecnol Medical Products, Inc.
921 F. Supp. 1219 (D. Delaware, 1995)
Endress + Hauser, Inc. v. Hawk Measurement Systems Pty. Ltd.
892 F. Supp. 1123 (S.D. Indiana, 1995)
Johnstown America Corp. v. Trinity Industries, Inc.
865 F. Supp. 1159 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1994)
American Permahedge, Inc. v. Barcana, Inc.
857 F. Supp. 308 (S.D. New York, 1994)
THK America, Inc. v. NSK Co.
151 F.R.D. 625 (N.D. Illinois, 1993)
The Read Corporation and F.T. Read & Sons, Inc. v. Portec, Inc., D/B/A Portec/kolberg Division
970 F.2d 816 (Federal Circuit, 1992)
Continental Can Company Usa, Inc. And Continental Pet Technologies, Inc. v. Monsanto Company, Hoover Universal, Inc. And Johnson Controls, Inc.
948 F.2d 1264 (Federal Circuit, 1991)
Standard Manufacturing Co. v. United States
25 Cl. Ct. 1 (Court of Claims, 1991)
GTE Products Corp. v. Kennametal, Inc.
772 F. Supp. 907 (W.D. Virginia, 1991)
Ethicon, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp.
762 F. Supp. 480 (D. Connecticut, 1991)
Micro Motion, Inc. v. Exac Corp.
761 F. Supp. 1420 (N.D. California, 1991)
Pharmacia, Inc. v. Frigitronics, Inc.
727 F. Supp. 710 (D. Massachusetts, 1989)
Joy Manufacturing Co. v. CGM Valve & Gauge Co.
730 F. Supp. 1387 (S.D. Texas, 1989)
Rca Corporation v. Data General Corporation, Defendant/cross-Appellant
887 F.2d 1056 (Federal Circuit, 1989)
Datascope Corp. v. Smec, Inc., Defendant/cross-Appellant
879 F.2d 820 (Federal Circuit, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
782 F.2d 159, 228 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 356, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 19965, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/great-northern-corporation-v-davis-core-pad-company-inc-cafc-1986.