UNITED STATES

v.

SILLIMAN

Citator

Cited By (33 total)

• Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
  …ts into one, does not preclude application of the doctrine of equivalents. The solidity of this precedent was referred to by Judge L. Hand in Royal Typewriter Co. v. Remington Rand, Inc., 168 F. 2d 691, 693, 77 USPQ 517, 519 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 335 U.S. 825, 69 S.Ct. 50, 93 L.Ed. 379 (1948): [*969] [Although we are chary of all objective absolutes in the field of patents, reliance upon which has done more to conceal and confuse the subject than anything else, courts have with curious unanimity held tha…
• Winters v. Abe Lavine, 574 F.2d 46 (2d Cir. 1978)
  …ere appropriate, the state court’s standards of collateral estoppel as well as its standards of res judicata. E. g., American Mannex Corp. v. Rozands, supra, 462 F. 2d at 690; United States v. Silliman, 167 F. 2d 607, 620-21 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 335 U.S. 825, 69 S.Ct. 48, 93 L.Ed. 379 (1948); 1B Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 0.406, at 902 n. 4 (1974); Developments in the Law — Section 1983 and Federalism, 90 Harv.L.Rev. 1133, 1338 n. 37 (1977). When applied to the case before us, these rules require us to…
• James Talcott, Inc. v. Allahabad Bank, Ltd., 444 F.2d 451 (5th Cir. 1971)
  …has the burden fails in his proof and the issue is decided against him, he is just as much bound by collateral estoppel as though he had presented a barrel of testimony.” See also United States v. Silliman, 3d Cir., 167 F. 2d 607, 617, cert. denied, 335 U.S. 825, 69 S.Ct. 48, 93 L.Ed. 379 (1948); Partmar Corp. v. Paramount Pictures Theatres Corp., 347 U.S. 89, 101, 74 S.Ct. 414, 98 L.Ed. 532 (1954). There is another reason why we see no unfairness in applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel in this cas…