H. B. ZACHRY CO.
v.
TERRY; LICHTENSTEIN ET AL. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION; 58TH STREET PLAZA THEATRE, INC. ET AL. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE; JEFFERSON V. CHRONICLE PUBLISHING CO.; WHITE V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

U.S. | 1952-11-10
Nos. 73; No. 83; No. 91; No. 96; No. 254
344 U.S. 882 Supreme Court of the United States (1952) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Full opinion text not available for this case.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Fla. Brace Corp. & Arthur R. Moore v. Bartels, 332 F.2d 337 (9th Cir. 1964)
    …icated cases that some wilfulness must exist on the part of the losing party before attorney’s fees are to be awarded. Cf. Packwood v. Briggs & Stratton Corp., D.Del.1951, 99 F.Supp. 803, cert. den. 344 U.S. 844, 73 S.Ct. 61, 97 L.Ed. 657, reh. den. 344 U.S. 882, 73 S.Ct. 174, 97 L.Ed. 683. In the above case, the court stated a rule that is apt here; even though the facts differ: “Defendants’ counsel was firmly convinced of the lack of invention in plaintiff’s patent. His advice to his clients and the act…
  • …s not invention, the court relied upon criteria stated by this court after an analysis of the cases in Packwood v. Briggs & Stratton Corp., 3 Cir., 1952, 195 F. 2d 971, 973, certiorari denied 344 U.S. 844, 73 S.Ct. 61, 97 L.Ed. 657, rehearing denied 344 U.S. 882, 73 S.Ct. 174, 97 L.Ed. 683. No subsequent case has eroded the authority of Packwood, which itself does no more than restate and apply the established doctrine that “ ‘the mere aggregation of a number of old parts or elements which, in the aggregati…
  • Nachtman v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 235 F.2d 211 (3d Cir. 1956)
    …istributing Corporation v. Caley, 1945, 147 F. 2d 138, certiorari denied 325 U.S. 859, 65 S.Ct. 1199, 89 L.Ed. 1979, and Packwood v. Briggs & Stratton Corp., 1952, [*213] 195 F. 2d 971, certiorari denied 344 U.S. 844, 73 S.Ct. 61, 97 L.Ed. 657; Id., 344 U.S. 882, 73 S.Ct. 174, 97 L.Ed. 683. What Judge Hastie said, speaking for the court in the Packwood case, may aptly he repeated, 195 F. 2d at pages 973-974: “A jury in a patent case is not free to treat invention as a concept broad enough to include whatev…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw