· 12/28/1979
Ecodyne Corp. v. Croll-Reynolds Engineering Co.
Citations
- 491 F. Supp. 194
- 206 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 601
- 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7711
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- denying a patent holder’s request for a declaratory ruling and its section 271 claim because the device in question was not completed and ready for sale
- “for there to have been a sale ..., the entire apparatus must have been constructed and ready for use”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Ellen B. Burns
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.