ANDERSON, District Judge.
The court finds:
(a) That the Kidd patents are both valid and infringed.
(b) That the Redus patent is neither valid nor infringed.
The overwhelming proof is that Kidd had reduced his second patent to practice before Redus disclosed his alleged patent to any outsider.
Taking from the two machines all that is common to the prior art, everything in the Redus machine is copied from the Kidd machine.
The...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.