MUTH, ADMINISTRATRIX

v.

ATLASS ET AL., EXECUTORS; DARR, ADMINISTRATRIX V. ATLASS ET AL., EXECUTORS; BIRDSELL V. UNITED STATES; WILLIAMSON ET AL. V. BLANKENSHIP, JUDGE, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Water Servs., Inc. v. Tesco Chems., Inc., 410 F.2d 163 (5th Cir. 1969)
  …the three cases flatly disregarded Sears and Compco as inapposite to any issue in a trade secret case. Servo Corp. v. General Electric Co., 4 Cir. 1964, 337 F. 2d 716, cert. denied, 1966, 383 U.S. 934, 86 S.Ct. 1061, 15 L.Ed.2d 851, reh. den. 1966, 384 U.S. 914, 86 S.Ct. 1333, 16 L.Ed. 366; Schulenberg v. Signatrol, Inc., 33 Ill.2d 379, 212 N.E. 2d 865, 868, [*172] (1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 959, 86 S.Ct. 1225, 16 L.Ed.2d 302 (1966). Hampton v. Blair Mfg. Co., 8 Cir. 1967, 374 F. 2d 969, applied Sears,…
• Walt Disney Prods. v. Fred A. Niles Commc'ns Ctr., Inc., 369 F.2d 230 (7th Cir. 1966)
  …fter the fact of making an invention.” We agree with this observation. In Holley v. Outboard Marine Corp., N.D.Ill. (1964), 241 F.Supp. 657, 665, aff’d. 7 Cir. (1965), 345 F. 2d 351, cert. den. 383 U.S. 934, 86 S.Ct. 1062, 15 L.Ed.2d 851, reh. den. 384 U.S. 914, 86 S.Ct. 1334, 16 L.Ed.2d 366 (1966), the Court said: “Once a system such as plaintiff’s is marketed, it, of course, becomes possible to speculate as to its similarity to a particular combination of elements from [*235] prior patents. Hindsight, .h…
• Servo Corp. OF Am. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 393 F.2d 551 (4th Cir. 1968)
  …ssed herein. We direct that each party shall pay its own costs on appeal. Reversed and remanded. . Certiorari was denied in Servo Corporation of America v. General Electric Co., 383 U.S. 934, 86 S.Ct. 1061, 15 L.Ed.2d 851 (1966), rehearing denied, 384 U.S. 914, 88 S.Ct. 1333, 16 L.Ed.2d 366 (1966). . This was the second Special Master who had served in the case. The first Special Master had acted until the first appeal to this Court. . The first Special Master in his consideration of the validity of the…