Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

327 F.2d 497

Docket No. 9085.

Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd. v. Bendix Corp.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued November 4, 1963.

Decided January 17, 1964.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1964-01-17

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““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. * * * ””

quoted by 3 later decisions, including Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd. v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 285 F. Supp. 714 - Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd. v. Methode Electronics, Inc.

Relies on 218 F. Supp. 1 - Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd. v. Bendix Aviation Corp.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1964-01-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently April 1983 · most notably Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd. v. United States (1967), True Temper Corporation v. Cf&i Steel Corporation (1979)

15 federal appellate · 3 district ·

210196419701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Walter J. Blenko, Pittsburgh, Pa. (John W. Avirett, II, Baltimore, Md., Walter J. Blenko, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa., M. Victor Leventritt, New York City, Piper & Marbury, Baltimore, Md., and Blenko, Hoopes, Leonard & Buell, Pittsburgh, Pa., on brief), for appellants.

Harold J. Birch and Edward S. Irons, Washington, D. C. (Benjamin C. Howard, Baltimore, Md., William W. Beckett, Hyattsville, Md., Edward F. McKie, Jr., Washington, D. C., Miles & Stockbridge, Baltimore, Md., and Irons, Birch, Swindler & McKie, Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH, BOREMAN and BRYAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

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.

¶2

Affirmed.

/327/f2d/497 · .json · Public domain