DONALD G. LYON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
THE BOEING COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed the district court's summary judgment, agreeing that the defendant's aircraft did not infringe the plaintiff's patents and that the patents were invalid.
Plaintiff sued defendant for patent infringement regarding aircraft wing and flap systems. The district court granted summary judgment for the defenda…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102(B)) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This matter is here on the appeal of Donald G. Lyon from a summary judgment against him in his patent infringement suit against The Boeing Company.
The district court concluded that the record manifested that the wing and flap system on the 747 model aircraft constructed by Boeing did not infringe claim 10 of Lyon’s U.S. Patent No. 3,127,130; that the leading edge flap on said aircraft did not infringe claims 1, 2, 3 and 6 of Lyon’s U.S. Patent No. 3,076,623; and, in addition, that each of said patent claims was invalid because anticipated (35 U.S.C. § 102(b)) and obvious (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Our examination of the record impels us to the same conclusions as those of the court below. Having also studied Judge Sharp’s written opinion, reported in 438 F.Supp. 345 (W.D.Wash. 1975), and being satisfied that it sets out a full and correct exposition of the matter, we confirm and adopt it in all respects as the opinion of this court.
Accordingly, the judgment should be and is