From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Long Manufacturing Co. v. Lilliston Implement

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Apr 4, 1972
457 F.2d 1317 (4th Cir. 1972)

Opinion

Nos. 71-2016, 71-2017.

Argued March 8, 1972.

Decided April 4, 1972.

A. Yates Dowell, Jr., Arlington, Va. (Henry C. Bourne and Bourne, Bourne Britt, Tarboro, N.C., on brief), for Long Mfg. Co.

Edward Taylor Newton, Atlanta, Ga. (Edwin L. Reynolds, William J. Ormsby, Jr., and Newton, Hopkins Ormsby, Atlanta, Ga., and Cyrus F. Lee, and Connor, Lee, Connor Reece, Wilson, N.C., on brief), for Lilliston Implement Co.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and WINTER and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.


After full consideration of the briefs and oral argument, we find ourselves in agreement with the decision of the District Court that both of the appellant's patents are invalid on the ground of obviousness to persons reasonably skilled in the art. Long Manufacturing Co. v. Lilliston Implement Co., E.D.N.C., 328 F. Supp. 268.

We decline to award the attorneys fees sought by the appellee since this is not one of the "exceptional cases" to which this form of relief in patent cases is limited.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Long Manufacturing Co. v. Lilliston Implement

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Apr 4, 1972
457 F.2d 1317 (4th Cir. 1972)
Case details for

Long Manufacturing Co. v. Lilliston Implement

Case Details

Full title:LONG MANUFACTURING COMPANY, APPELLANT v. LILLISTON IMPLEMENT COMPANY…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Apr 4, 1972

Citations

457 F.2d 1317 (4th Cir. 1972)

Citing Cases

Jack Winter, Inc. v. Koratron Co., Inc.

Similarly, in Norton Company v. Bendix Corporation, supra, 449 F.2d 553, a patent was held to be invalid for…

Dennison Mfg. Co. v. Ben Clements and Sons, Inc.

The terms which defendant cites as objectionable are found in Claim 1 ("comparatively more readily…