FISHER

v.

ARKANSAS

Citator

Cited By

• Plastic Container Corp. v. Cont'l Plastics OF Okla., Inc., 607 F.2d 885 (10th Cir. 1979)
  ….Q. 422-23, the court said: where the plaintiff was aware of the obvious invalidity of his patent at the time he brought suit, Tidewater Patent Development Co. v. Kitchen, 371 F. 2d 1004, 1013 [152 U.S.P.Q. 36, 656] (4th Cir. [1966]), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 821, 88 S.Ct. 46, 19 L.Ed.2d 74 [155 U.S.P.Q. 768 (1967)], or where the litigation once instituted was vexatious or unduly protracted, Uarco Incorporated v. Moore Business Forms, Inc., 440 F. 2d 580, 586 [169 U.S.P.Q. 263] (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 404…
• Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chem. Co. & Joe C. Eller, 736 F.2d 688 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
  …bility to award attorney fees under § 285. For example, Crystal relies on Tidewater Patent Development Co. v. Kitchen, 371 F. 2d 1004, 152 USPQ 36 (4th Cir.1966), modified in part and pet. for reh. denied, 371 F. 2d 1013, 152 USPQ 656, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 821, 88 S.Ct. 46, 19 L.Ed.2d 74 (1967). In Tidewater, the Fourth Circuit reversed a trial court which had held the patent in suit valid and had found infringement, and declared the case “exceptional” under § 285 because the patentee had brought suit on…
• True Temper Corp. v. CF&I Steel Corp., 601 F.2d 495 (10th Cir. 1979)
  …ing his suit may justify an award of attorney fees. Thus, where the plaintiff was aware of the obvious invalidity of his patent at the time he brought suit, Tidewater Patent Development Co. v. Kitchen, 371 F. 2d 1004, 1013 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 821, 88 S.Ct. 46, 19 L.Ed.2d 74, or where the litigation once instituted was vexatious or unduly protracted, Uarco Incorporated v. Moore Business Forms, Inc., 440 F. 2d 580, 586 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 873, 92 S.Ct. 91, 30 L.Ed.2d 117, the ca…