GARRISON

v.

JOHNSTON, WARDEN

Citator

Cited By (24 total)

• AGB OIL Co. v. Crystal Exploration & Prod. Co., 406 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
  …e a default judgment or to vacate a final judgment are res judicata. See, e.g., American Surety Company v. Baldwin, 287 U.S. 156, 53 S.Ct. 98, 77 L.Ed. 231 (1932); Sabin v. Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, 151 F. 2d 541 (10th Cir. 1945), cert. denied, 328 U.S. 840, 66 S.Ct. 1011, 90 L.Ed. 1615 (1946); Kithcart v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 119 F. 2d 497 (8th Cir. 1941), cert. denied sub nom., United States ex rel. Kithcart v. Gardner, 315 U.S. 808, 62 S.Ct. 793, 86 L.Ed. 1207 (1942); Reeves v. Hutson, 1…
• Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1974)
  …n sale” within the meaning of 35 U. S. C. § 102 (b) without losing its secret .character. Painton & Co. v. Bourns, Inc., 442 F. 2d, at 224 n. 6; Metallizing. Engineering Co. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., 153 F. 2d 516, 520 (GA2), cert. denied, 328 U. S. 840 (1946). Doerfer, The Limits on Trade Secret Law Imposed by Federal Patent and Antitrust Supremacy, 80 Harv. L. Rev. 1432, 1454 (1967). See generally Wydiek, Trade Secrets: Federal Preemption in Light of Goldstein and Kewanee (Part II — Conclusion)…
• Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141 (U.S. 1989)
  …he shall not exploit his discovery competitively after it is ready for patenting; he must content himself with either secrecy or legal monopoly.” Metallizing Engineering Co. v. Kenyon Bearing &Auto Parts Co., 153 F. 2d 516, 520 (CA2), cert. denied, 328 U. S. 840 (1946). In addition to the requirements of novelty and utility, the federal patent law has long required that an innovation not be [*150] anticipated by the prior art in the field. Even if a particular combination of elements is “novel” in the lite…