The Chemithon Corporation, and v. The Procter & Gamble Company, and the Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company, and
The CHEMITHON CORPORATION, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. the PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, and the Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company, Appellees and Cross-Appellants
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Chemithon Corporation, holder of United States patents 3,024,258 and 3,- *894 058,920, for making synthetic detergents, brought this action against Procter & Gamble Company, charging infringement of its patents and misappropriation of its trade secrets. P & G challenged the validity of the patents and sought attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 .
The district court held that P & G used the processes claimed by the patents for more than a year before Chemithon filed its applications, and that its use was public within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b). Consequently, the court held the patents invalid. It also held that P & G had not misappropriated Chemithon’s trade secrets, but it denied P & G’s request for attorneys’ fees. In reaching these conclusions the district judge applied correct principles of law to findings of fact that are amply supported by the evidence. Finding neither error nor abuse of discretion, we affirm on the opinion of the district court. Chemithon Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 287 F.Supp. 291 (D.Md.1968).
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Struthers Patent Corp. v. Nestle Co., Inc.
- Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.
- Lundy Electronics & Systems, Inc. v. Optical Recognition Systems, Inc.
- Federal Sign & Signal Corp. v. Bangor Punta Operations, Inc.
- Milliken Research Corp. v. Dan River, Inc.
- Teledyne Mid-America Corp. v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp.
Most recent
- Vertellus Holdings LLC v. W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn.
- Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.
- Milliken Research Corp. v. Dan River, Inc.
- Struthers Patent Corp. v. Nestle Co., Inc.
- Lundy Electronics & Systems, Inc. v. Optical Recognition Systems, Inc.
- Federal Sign & Signal Corp. v. Bangor Punta Operations, 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.