ODDO

v.

FOSTER, WARDEN

Citator

Cited By

• Steelcase, Inc. v. Delwood Furniture Co., Inc., 578 F.2d 74 (5th Cir. 1978)
  …62 S.Ct. 37, 86 L.Ed. 58; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co., 1944, 321 U.S. 275, 64 S.Ct. 593, 88 L.Ed. 721; Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 1950, 340 U.S. 147, 71 S.Ct. 127, 95 L.Ed. 162, rehearing denied, 340 U.S. 918, 71 S.Ct. 349. 95 L.Ed. 663. These cases considered the standard implicit in the constitutional provision granting power to Congress “To promote the Progress of Science and [the] useful Arts . . . .” Art. I & 8, cl. 8. See Graham v. John Deere Co.,…
• MacLaren v. B-I-W Grp. Inc., 535 F.2d 1367 (2d Cir. 1976)
  …commercial embodiments of the claimed invention. It is the “claims which define the boundaries of a patent monopoly.” Great A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 149, 71 S.Ct. 127, 128, 95 L.Ed. 162 (1950), rehearing denied, 340 U.S. 918, 71 S.Ct. 349, 95 L.Ed. 663 (1951); Universal Oil Products Co. v. Globe Oil & Refining Co., 322 U.S. 471, 484-85, 64 S.Ct. 1110, 88 L.Ed. 1399 (1944); Milcor Steel Co. v. George A. Fuller Co., 316 U.S. 143, 145-46, 62 S.Ct. 969, 86 L.Ed. 1332 (1942)…
• Texsteam Corp. & Otto Schoenfeld v. Alva G. Blanchard, 352 F.2d 983 (5th Cir. 1965)
  …n be made for the invalidity of Blanchard patent 2,212,997 [*986] under the principles announced by the Supreme Court in such cases as Great A & P Tea Company v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 71 S.Ct. 127, 95 L.Ed. 162, rehearing denied 340 U.S. 918, 71 S.Ct. 349, 95 L.Ed. 663. In view of the expired status of the patent, and seeing that the decision on infringement controls the outcome of the controversy, we do not pass upon the question of validity. We now go directly to the infringement iss…