Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Long Manufacturing Co. v. Lilliston Implement Co.

457 F.2d 1317

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-04-04
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: 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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Long Manufacturing Co. v. Lilliston Implement Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion
LONG MANUFACTURING CO. v. LILLISTON IMPLEMENT,457 F.2d 1317(4th Cir. 1972)
LONG MANUFACTURING COMPANY, APPELLANT v. LILLISTON IMPLEMENT COMPANY,
APPELLEE.
LONG MANUFACTURING COMPANY, APPELLEE v. LILLISTON IMPLEMENT COMPANY,
APPELLANT.
Nos. 71-2016, 71-2017.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
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.
PER CURIAM:
[1] 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.

[2] 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.

[3] Affirmed.Page 1318