Long Manufacturing Co. v. Lilliston Implement Co.

Fourth Circuit

Long Manufacturing Co. v. Lilliston Implement Co.

457 F.2d 1317, 173 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 321

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided April 4, 1972·No. Nos. 71-2016, 71-2017·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

After full consideration of the briefs and oral argument, we find ourselves in agreement with the decision of the District Court that both of the appellant’s patents are invalid on the ground of obviousness to persons reasonably skilled in the art. Long Manufacturing Co. v. Lilliston Implement Co., E.D.N.C., 328 F.Supp. 268.

We decline to award the attorneys fees sought by the appellee since this is not one of the “exceptional cases” to which this form of relief in patent cases is limited.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

After full consideration of the briefs and oral argument, we find ourselves in agreement with the decision of the District Court that both of the appellant’s patents are invalid on the ground of obviousness to persons reasonably skilled in the art. Long Manufacturing Co. v. Lilliston Implement Co., E.D.N.C., 328 F.Supp. 268.

We decline to award the attorneys fees sought by the appellee since this is not one of the “exceptional cases” to which this form of relief in patent cases is limited.

Affirmed.

Long Manufacturing Co. v. Lilliston Implement Co., 457 F.2d 1317, 173 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 321 (4th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

457 F.2d 1317 (Long Manufacturing Co. v. Lilliston Implement Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related