1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 837 F.2d
  5. 837 F.2d 1044 (1988)
 

UNIROYAL, INC. v. RUDKIN-WILEY CORP.

No. 86-1300.

837 F.2d 1044 (1988)

UNIROYAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RUDKIN-WILEY CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. PREMIX, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RUDKIN-WILEY CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

January 13, 1988.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Francis T. Carr, of Kenyon & Kenyon, New York City, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Robert D. Fier, Albert J. Breneisen and John D. Vandenberg, of Kenyon & Kenyon, New York City.

William R. Murphy, of Tyler Cooper & Alcorn, New Haven, Conn., and Thomas A. Beck, of Felfe & Lynch, New York City, argued for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before DAVIS, NEWMAN and ARCHER, Circuit Judges.

ARCHER, Circuit Judge.

Rudkin-Wiley Corporation (Rudkin-Wiley) appeals the judgment by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut holding U.S. Patent 3,241,876 ('876 patent or Saunders' patent) invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (1982 and Supp. III 1986) or, if valid, not infringed by Uniroyal, Inc. or its successor in interest, Premix, Inc. (collectively, Uniroyal). We affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, reverse-in-part and remand...

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