Statutory Presumption Of Validity (35 U.S.C. § 282)

10 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Seattle BOX Co., Inc. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc.
  731 F.2d 818· Fed. Cir.· 1984-03-26 ·cited 44×
  The court held that broadened reissue patent claims are not identical to original claims for purposes of intervening rights, and reversed liability for infringement prior to reissue. It affirmed literal infringement for some spacer blocks but vacated damages for others, remanding
• Application of Thomas L. Jacobs and Ronald S. Bauer
  318 F.2d 743· C.C.P.A.· 1963-06-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellants failed to prove that the prior art disclosure of perfluoroallene in the Miller patent was inoperable, and therefore the patent disclosure was sufficient to reject the appealed claims.
• Blohm & Voss AG v. Prudential-Grace Lines, Inc.
  489 F.2d 231· 4th Cir.· 1973-12-06 ·cited 12×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's finding that the Sprengel patent is valid and not obvious, disagreeing with the majority's de novo review.
• Triumph Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Alamance Indus., Inc.
  299 F.2d 793· 4th Cir.· 1962-02-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the patent is invalid due to a lack of inventiveness and impermissibly broad claims, despite finding insufficient evidence of fraudulent procurement.
• Globe Linings, Inc. v. City OF Corvallis
  555 F.2d 727· 9th Cir.· 1977-06-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the patent was invalid for obviousness because its key elements were present in the prior art and the adaptations were not beyond the skill of an ordinary mechanic.
• The Porter-Cable Mach. Co. v. The Black & Decker Mfg. Co.
  402 F.2d 517· 4th Cir.· 1968-09-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the patent for a 'free floating' insert in a saber saw was patentable as a conclusion of law, and that the defendant did not infringe.
• Matter of the Application of Paulsen Spence
  261 F.2d 244· C.C.P.A.· 1958-12-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the rejected claim was unpatentable over the prior art because the differences were obvious to a person skilled in the art.
• Berry Bros. Corp. v. Sigmon
  317 F.2d 700· 4th Cir.· 1963-05-06 ·cited 5×
  The court held that while the patent is valid within a narrow scope, the defendant's folded sock packages do not infringe because they lack the essential "projecting heel portion" as defined during prosecution.
• Blaw-Knox Co. v. Hartsville OIL Mill & the French Oil Mach. Co.
  394 F.2d 877· 4th Cir.· 1968-04-02
  The court held that while the Karnofsky patent was valid, the French Oil Mill Machinery Company's Upton extractor did not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents because its method of operation was substantially different.
• United States Gypsum Co. v. Dale Indus. Inc. & Albert Fruman
  383 F.2d 497· 6th Cir.· 1967-09-27
  The patent for the Nelsson sound reduction channel is valid and not invalid due to obviousness over the prior art.