Automatic Devices Corp. v. Sinko Tool & Manufacturing Co.
Opinion
Me. Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a companion case to Cuno Engineering Corp.
v. Automatic Devices Corp., ante, p. 84. The court below held that claims 2, 3, and 11 of the Mead patent (No. 1,736,544) were invalid and not infringed. 112 F. 2d 335 . We granted the petition for certiorari limited to the question of validity of those claims. For the reasons stated in Cuno Engineering Corp.
v. Automatic Devices Corp., supra, the judgment is Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals4
- Federal District Courts1
- Federal Specialty Courts2
- State Highest Courts1
- State Trial Courts1
Relies on it most ⓘ
- Beckman Instruments, Inc., and Leland C. Clark, Jr. -Cross v. Chemtronics, Inc. And J. Ryan Neville -Cross
- Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. Chemtronics, Inc.
- Erie Technological Products, Inc. v. Die Craft Metal Products, Inc.
- Galion Metallic Vault Co. v. Edward G. Budd Mfg. Co.
- Dominion Magnesium Limited v. The United States
- Melvin v. Melvin
Most recent
- Beckman Instruments, Inc., and Leland C. Clark, Jr. -Cross v. Chemtronics, Inc. And J. Ryan Neville -Cross
- Erie Technological Products, Inc. v. Die Craft Metal Products, Inc.
- Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. Chemtronics, Inc.
- Dominion Magnesium Limited v. The United States
- Dominion Magnesium Ltd. v. United States
- Bosch Petition
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.