Filterite Corporation v. Tate Engineering, Inc.
| Citation | 447 F.2d 62 |
| Decision Date | 27 May 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 15379.,15379. |
| Parties | FILTERITE CORPORATION, a body corporate of the State of Maryland, Appellant, v. TATE ENGINEERING, INC., and the Carborundum Company, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Harry John Staas, Washington, D. C., Z. Townsend Parks, Jr., Baltimore, Md., for appellant.
William H. Webb, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellees.
Before SOBELOFF, Senior Circuit Judge, and WINTER and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.
Filterite Corporation, assignee of United States Letters Patent No. 3,356,226, brought this action alleging infringement of its patent. The District Court, 318 F.Supp. 584, held the patent valid, but not infringed because of differences between the method of construction of the accused filter units and the specifications of the patent claim. Upon careful consideration of the record, the briefs, and oral arguments, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.
...v. Watkins, supra, 205 USPQ at 912; Filterite Corp. v. Tate Engineering, Inc., 318 F.Supp. 584, 590 (D.Md.1970), aff'd per curiam, 447 F.2d 62 (4th Cir.1971). 30. Inactivity by an alleged reducer to practice is suggestive that the reduction to practice did not actually take place. Such inac......
- Shiflett v. Commonwealth of Virginia
-
Pfizer, Inc. v. International Rectifier Corp.
...Chemical Corp., 253 F.2d 156 (4th Cir. 1958); Filterite Corporation v. Tate Engineering, Inc., 318 F.Supp. 584 (D.Md.1970), aff'd 447 F.2d 62 (4th Cir. 1971); In Re Felton, 484 F.2d 495 (Cust. & Pat.App. 1973); Silvestri v. Grant, 496 F.2d 593 (Cust. & Pat.App. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S.......
-
Deering Milliken Research Corp. v. Beaunit Corp.
...did not meet statutory requirements of validity, Filterite Corp. v. Tate Engineering, Inc., 318 F.Supp. 584 (D.Md.1970), aff'd 447 F.2d 62 (4th Cir. 1971). The district court's decision that the "wrap around" feature of Lesley's invention was non-obvious under § 103 was a determination, as ......