Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd., and Technograph Printed Electronics, Incorporated v. Bendix Corporation
TECHNOGRAPH PRINTED CIRCUITS, LTD., and Technograph Printed Electronics, Incorporated, Appellants, v. BENDIX CORPORATION, Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
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 .
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 36 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd. v. Methode Electronics, Inc.
- Carpet Seaming Tape Licensing Corporation v. Best Seam Incorporated, Carpet Seaming Tape Licensing Corporation v. Vectron Industries, Inc. And Eugene J. Tasse
- Diamond International Corporation v. Walterhoefer
- Carpet Seaming Tape Licensing Corp. v. Best Seam Inc.
- Technograph Printed Circuits Ltd. v. Martin-Marietta Corp.
- Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd. v. Martin-Marietta Corp.
Most recent
- Ab Iro v. Otex, Inc.
- Carpet Seaming Tape Licensing Corporation v. Best Seam Incorporated, Carpet Seaming Tape Licensing Corporation v. Vectron Industries, Inc. And Eugene J. Tasse
- Carpet Seaming Tape Licensing Corp. v. Best Seam Inc.
- True Temper Corporation, and v. Cf&i Steel Corporation, and
- Sims v. MacK Trucks, Inc.
- Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken, Inc.
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.