Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd., and Technograph Printed Electronics, Incorporated v. Bendix Corporation

327 F.2d 497, 140 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 285, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6690
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided January 17, 1964·No. 9085_1·Published·Cited by 38 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After careful consideration of the record, the arguments and the briefs of counsel, we are persuaded that the patent claims are invalid for obviousness in the light of the prior art for the reasons fully discussed in the opinion of the District Court. Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd. v. Bendix Aviation Corp., D.C. Md., 218 F.Supp. 1.

Affirmed.

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

Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd., and Technograph Printed Electronics, Incorporated v. Bendix Corporation, 327 F.2d 497, 140 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 285, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6690 (4th Cir. 1964).

327 F.2d 497 (Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd., and Technograph Printed Electronics, Incorporated v. Bendix Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ab Iro v. Otex, Inc.
566 F. Supp. 419 (D. South Carolina, 1983)
Sims v. MacK Trucks, Inc.
459 F. Supp. 1198 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1978)
Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken, Inc.
444 F. Supp. 648 (D. South Carolina, 1977)
Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. United States
496 F.2d 535 (Court of Claims, 1974)
Duplan Corporation v. Deering Milliken, Inc.
379 F. Supp. 388 (D. South Carolina, 1974)
Congoleum Industries, Inc. v. Armstrong Cork Company
366 F. Supp. 220 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1973)
Shelco, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Company
322 F. Supp. 485 (N.D. Illinois, 1970)
Monsanto Company v. Rohm and Haas Company
312 F. Supp. 778 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1970)
Malsbary Manufacturing Co. v. Ald, Inc.
310 F. Supp. 1112 (N.D. Illinois, 1970)
Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Riverton Laboratories, Inc.
304 F. Supp. 357 (S.D. New York, 1969)