Micro-Magnetic Industries, Inc. v. Ardac, Inc.
MICRO-MAGNETIC INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee, v. ARDAC, INC., Et Al., Appellants
Opinion
SKOPIL, District Judge:
Appellee, Micro-Magnetic Industries, Inc., sued appellants, Ardac, Inc. and its subsidiaries, for infringement of United States Patent No. 2,964,641, referred to as the ‘Selgin II patent.
The suit upon the Selgin II invention was tried before the court which found that the Ardac machine infringed Claims 1, 4 and 5 of United States Patent No. 2,964,641. The court enjoined the defendants from infringing Claims 1, 4 and 5 without a license from Micro-Magnetic, and awarded damages for infringement based upon four percent of the price of Ardae’s machine. Ardac appeals from that judgment.
Having reviewed the record, we have concluded that the trial court’s findings of fact are clearly supported by the evidence. We agree with the trial judge’s opinion and affirm the case on the authority thereof. That opinion is reported at 372 F.Supp. 477 (D.C.1972).
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation. Sauquoit Fibers Company v. Leesona Corporation, Kayser-Roth Corporation (In Its Own Name and D/B/A Kayser-Roth Hosiery Companyand Kayser-Roth Hosiery Co., Inc.) v
- Sauquoit Fibers Co. v. Leesona Corp.
- Micro-Magnetic Industries, Inc., a Corporation v. Advance Automatic Sales Co., Inc.
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Catalyst Research Corp.
Most recent
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Catalyst Research Corp.
- Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation. Sauquoit Fibers Company v. Leesona Corporation, Kayser-Roth Corporation (In Its Own Name and D/B/A Kayser-Roth Hosiery Companyand Kayser-Roth Hosiery Co., Inc.) v
- Sauquoit Fibers Co. v. Leesona Corp.
- Micro-Magnetic Industries, Inc., a Corporation v. Advance Automatic Sales Co., 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.