# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Long Manufacturing Co. v. Lilliston Implement Co.

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385606_1008%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari
- **Published:** January 1, 1972
- **Citation:** 409 U.S. 874

## Text

‘ition

2 ay 3 cm -
vic Supreme Court, U. S
2 FLLE Dé
JUN 29 19/2 ©

IN THE
4 — RODAK, JR.,C

Supreme Court of the United States

OcroBerR TERM, 1972

No.

Lona MANUFACTURING Company, Petitioner
v.

Liuiston ImpLEMENT Company, Respondent.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

A. Yates DowELL, JR.
Suite 705
2001 Jefferson Davis Swy.
Arlington, Virginia 22202
Attorney for Petitioner
Of Counsel:
Henry C. BouRNE
P. O. Box 1158 x
onstant N. al 27886 4

> .

~ “To-promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by

securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the

exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Dis
coveries ;
. > _

Act of June 25, 1948; c. 646; 62 Stat. 928; Title 28, United

States Code, Section 1254:

Section 1254. Courts of appeals; certiorari; appeal;
certified questions.

Cases in the courts of appeals may be reviewed by the
Supreme Court by the following methods:

(1) By writ of certiorari granted upon the petition of
any party to any civil or criminal case, before or after
rendition of judgment or decree ;

> * *

Patent Act of July 19, 1952; Public Law 593, 82nd Congress,
2d session; c. 950; 66 Stat. 792; Title 35, United States
Code, Section 103:

Section 103. Conditions for patentability; non-obvious
subject matter.

A patent may not be obtained though the invention is
not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section
102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter
sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the

—_—

subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Pat-
entability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the
invention was made.
Section 282. Presumption of validity ; defenses
A patent shall be presumed valid. * * *

Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States

Part V. Jvnispiction on Warr or Cerrionari

19.

CoxsiperaTions Governinc Review on CERTIoRARI

1. (b) Where a court of appeals . . . has decided a fed-
eral question in a way in conflict with applicable decisions
of this court; .. .

44a

I. Disposition of Patent Cases by the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals on the Question of Patentability or
for the Five Years Just Prior to Graham v. John Deere Co,
383 US 1 (1966) ye eae ne

Inv.orN.I. Val.

By &

Sub. PC. By Inf.
Op. N.O. Rev.

Chicopee Mfg. Corp. v. Kendall Co., 288 F2d
719 (1961) x

Honolulu Oil Corp. v. Shelby Poultry Co.,
293 F2d 127 (1961) x

Entron of Maryland, Inc. v. Jerrold Elec-
tronics Corp., 295 F2d 670 (1961) x

Power Curbers, Inc v. E. D. Etnyre & Co.,
298 F2d 484 (1962) x

Triumph Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Alamance
Industries, 299 F2d 793 (1962) x

Universal Inc. v. Kay Mfg. Corp., 301 F2d
140 (1962) x

Keiser v. High Point Hardware Co., 311 F2d
850 (1962) x

Nicholson v. Carl W. Mullis Engineering &
Mfg. Co., 315 F2d 532; ed. 375 US 828
(1963) x

Berry Bros. Corp. v. Sigmon, 317 F2d 700
(1963) x

Ransburg Electro-Coating Corp. v. Proctor
Electric Co., 317 F2d 302 (1963) x

Heyl & Patterson, Inc. v. McDowell Co., Inc.,
317 F2d 719 (1963) x

Allen v. Standard Crankshaft & Hydraulic
Co., Inc., 323 F2d 29 (1963)

Inv.orN.I. Val.
By &
Sub. PC. By Inf.
Op. N.O. Rev.

FMC Corp. v. City of Greensboro, 326 F2d
581 (1964)

Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd. vy. Bendiz
Corp., 327 F2d 497 (1964)

Marve’ Specialty Co., Ine. v. Bell Hosiery
Mills, Inc., 330 F2d 164 (1964)

Jackson v. Dunham-Bush, Inc., 333 F2d 287
(1964)

Servo Corp. of America v. General Electric
Co., 337 F2d 716 (1964)

Pennco Engineering Co. vy. Allied Chemical
Corp., 339 F2d 260 (1964)

Cook Engineering & Electronics, Inc., v.
Hickory Co., 340 F2d 235 (1965)

Collison Surgical Engineering Co. v. Murray-
Baumgartner Surgical Instrument Co., Inc.,
343 F2d 162 (1965)

Bullard Co. v. General Electric Co., 348 F2d
985 (1965)

Marston v. J. C. Penney Co., Inc., 353 F2d_
976 (1965)

Morpul, Inc. v. Glen Raven Knitting Mill,
Inc., 357 F.2d 732 (1966)

Mabs, Inc. v. Piedmont Shirt Co., 368 F2d
570 (1966) ;

|

Tidewater Patent Development Co., Inc. vy.
Kitchen, 371 F2d 1004 (1967)

Davis Harvester Co., Inc. vy. Long Mfg. Co.,
373 F2d 513 (1967)

Samuel J. Miller & Co. v. A. Schreter & Sons
Co., 374 F2d 510 (1967)

Eversharp, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 374
F2d 511 (1967)

x

Gunter & Cooke, Inc. y. Southern Electric
Service Co., 378 F2d 60 (1967)

Mahaffy & Harder Co. v. Standard Packaging
Corp., 389 F2d 525 (1968)

Blaw-Knozr Co. v. Hartsville Oil Mill, 394
F2d 877 (1968)

Wilcox Mfg. Co. v. Eastern Gas & Fuel Asso-
ciates, 400 F2d 960 (1968)

Wayne Knitting Mills vy. Russell Hosiery
Mills, Inc., 400 F2d 964 (1968)

Grinnell Corp. v. Virginia Electric & Power
Co., 491 F2d 451 (1968)

Porter-Cable Machine Co. v. Black & Decker
Mfg. Co., 402 F2d 517 (1968)

Pavement Salvage Co., v. Anderson’s-Black
Rock, Inc., 404 F2d 450 (1968)

Inv.orN.I. Val.
By &
Sub. P.C. By Inf.
Op. N.O. Rev.
Blumeraft of Pittsburgh v. Citizens National
Bank, 407 F2d 557 (1969) x
Cummins Engine Co., Inc. vy. General Motors
Corp., 424 F2d 1368 (1970) x
Chemithon Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
497 F2d 893; ¢.d. 400 U.S. 925 (1970) x
Jenkins Metal Shops, Inc. v. Pneumafil Corp.,
427 F2d 144 (1970) x
Welch et al v. General Motors Corp., 170
USPQ 1 (1970) x
Filterite Corporation v. Tate Engineering,
Inc., 447 F2d 62 (1971) x
General Dynamics Corp. v. Whitcomb, 443
F2d 630 (1971) x
Powell Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Long Mfg. Co., 171
USPQ 328 (1971) x
Compton v. Metal Products, Inc.,
453 F2d 38 (1971) x
Long Mfg. Co. v. Lilliston Implement Co.,
173 USPQ 321 (1972) x
Calico Scallop Corp. et al v. Willis Brothers,
Ine. et al, 173 USPQ 321 (1972) x
0 8 oe
Abbreviations :
Inv. —Invalid

NI. —Not Infringed

Sub. Op.—Substantial Opinion
P.C. —Per Curiam

N.O. —No Substantial Opinion

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385606_1008%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.