BARY

v.

UNITED STATES; KLEINBORD V. UNITED STATES; AND ROGERS V. UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Aro Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., Inc., 377 U.S. 476 (U.S. 1964)
  …can be no doubt that the amendment succeeded in effectuating this purpose; it is clear that under the present statute only damages are recoverable. See, e. g., Ric-Wil Co. v. E. B. Kaiser Co., 179 F. 2d 401, 407 (C. A. 7th Cir. 1950), cert. denied, 339 U. S. 958; Livesay Window Co. v. Livesay Industries, Inc., 251 F. 2d 469, 471-472 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1958); Laskowitz v. Marie Designer, Inc., 119 F. Supp. 541, 554-555 (D. C. S. D. Cal. 1954); Cullen, 28 J. Pat. Off. Soc. 838 (1946); Wolff, 28 J. Pat. Off. Soc.…
• Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 258 F.2d 124 (2d Cir. 1958)
  …e worth reducing to practice.” Artmoore Co. v. Dayless Mfg. Co., 7 Cir., 1953, 208 F. 2d 1, 4, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 920, 74 S.Ct. 518, 98 L.Ed. 1075. See also Ric-Wil Co. v. E. B. Kaiser Co., 7 Cir., 1950, 179 F. 2d 401, 404, certiorari denied 339 U.S. 958, 70 S.Ct. 981, 94 L.Ed. 1369. The otjier shingle patents were equally ineffective in suggesting that such striation would control edge separation and checking. Indeed, Prof. Grondal testified that he was skeptical about the claimed advantage of the…
• Kori Corp. v. Wilco Marsh Buggies & Draglines, Inc., 761 F.2d 649 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
  …that “it is clear that under the present statute only damages are recoverable.” 377 U.S. at 506, 84 S.Ct. at 1542, 141 USPQ at 694. In the first case, Ric-Wil Co. v. E.B. Kaiser Co., 179 F. 2d 401, 407, 84 USPQ 121, 126-27 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 958, 70 S.Ct. 981, 94 L.Ed. 1369, 85 USPQ 526 (1950), the Seventh Circuit noted that “profits realized by an infringer are not recoverable as such.” However, said the court: “ ‘General damages’ is a broad term which no doubt may include numerous element…