LITTON INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS, INC.

v.

JAMESBURY CORP.

Citator

Cited By

• Ssih Equip. S.A. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n & Stewart-Warner Corp., 718 F.2d 365 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
  …9 USPQ 513, 527 (1971); Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c). . South Corp. v. United States, 690 F. 2d 1368, 1370, 215 USPQ 657, 658 (Fed.Cir.1982). . See, e.g., Jamesbury Corp. v. Litton Indus. Prods., Inc., 586 F. 2d 917, 199 USPQ 641 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 961, 99 S.Ct 1503, 59 L.Ed.2d 774, 201 USPQ 960 (1979); Philips Indus., Inc. v. State Stove & Mfg. Co., 522 F. 2d 1137, 186 USPQ 458 (6th Cir.1975); Wilcox Mfg. Co. v. Eastern Gas & Fuel Assocs., 400 F. 2d 960, 158 USPQ 510 (4th Cir.1968), cert. denied,…
• Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
  …y for Lack of Utility Utility is a fact question, see e.g., Wilden Pump v. Pressed & Welded Products Co., 655 F. 2d 984, 988, 213 USPQ 282, 285 (9th Cir.1981); Nickola v. Peterson, 580 F. 2d 898, 911, 198 USPQ 385, 399 (6th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 961, 99 S.Ct. 1504, 59 L.Ed.2d 774 (1979). In determining utility, however, the claims must first be interpreted to define the invention to be tested for utility. Claim interpretation is a legal matter subject to review free of the clearly erroneous sta…
• Jamesbury Corp. v. Litton Indus. Prods., Inc., 839 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
  …Jamesbury Corp. v. Litton Indus. Prods., Inc., 427 F.Supp. 756, 195 USPQ 65 (D.Conn.1977). . Jamesbury Corp. v. Litton Indus. Prods., Inc., 442 F.Supp. 266, 196 USPQ 544 (D.Conn.1977), rev’d, 586 F. 2d 917, 199 USPQ 641 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 961, 99 S.Ct. 1503, 59 L.Ed.2d 774 (1979). . Jury interrogatory No. 1 read as follows: “Does the ball valve construction shown and described in the Saunders British patent or any other prior art differ in any significant particulars from the ball valv…