1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 501 F.2d
  5. 501 F.2d 282 (1974)
 

MOBIL OIL CORPORATION v. FILTROL CORPORATION

Nos. 71-2512, 71-2559, 71-2534 and 71-2560.

501 F.2d 282 (1974)

MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FILTROL CORPORATION and Texaco Inc., Defendants-Appellees. MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FILTROL CORPORATION and Texaco Inc., Defendants-Appellants.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

July 22, 1974.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

George B. Finnegan, Jr. (argued), of Morgan, Finnegan, Durham & Pine, Sanford M. Litvack (argued), of Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, New York City, for appellant.

William K. Kerr, Herbert F. Schwartz, Eric C. Woglom, William J. Hone, Fish & Neave, Hulit L. Madinger, New York City, John G. Flett, Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.

Before CHAMBERS, CARTER and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

JAMES M. CARTER. Circuit Judge:

In this patent case the district court held that certain claims of Mobil's U.S. Patents 3,210,267, 3,436,357 and 3,459,680 were valid and not infringed by either Filtrol or Texaco, and dismissed Filtrol's counterclaim for misuse of patents and damages.

Mobil has abandoned its appeal from the judgment of non-infringement as to Patent 3,210,267 (hereafter # '267) and as to claim 1 of Patent 3,436,357 (hereafter...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

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.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases