Akron Polymer Container Corporation, and Robert Winer, Counterdefendant v. Exxel Container, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “requisite weight . . . must be given” to evidence of good faith
• noting with approval its prior holding that disclosure of later filed Venus application could have led to a double patenting rejection in the Katz application
• noting its prior conclusion that a copending application was highly material to the prosecution of the patent-in-suit, as it could have served as the basis of a double patenting rejection
• re- versing an unquantified award of attorney fees along with the closely related merits issue
• discussed supra, reviewing an unquantified fee award pendent to a judgment of unen- forceability for inequitable conduct
• “Exxel contends, we think convincingly, that it hardly could be seeking to deceive the PTO as to the existence of copending applications when it actually disclosed the fact of copendency to the Venus examiner.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).