Customs and Patent Appeals· 10/15/1981
In re Nalbandian
Citations
- 661 F.2d 1214
- 211 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 782
- 1981 CCPA LEXIS 170
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding tweezer design obvious in light of prior art reference that contained vertical rather than horizontal fluting and straight rather than curved .pincers
- different shape of fluting on finger grips and different shape of pincers were de minimis differences in design for tweezers
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Baldwin, Markey, Miller, Nies, Rich
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
31 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Avia Group International, Inc., (Formerly Pensa, Inc.) v. L.A. Gear California, Inc.Federal Circuit· 1988-07-29· cited 421×
- Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool CorporationFederal Circuit· 1984-02-14· cited 211×
- L.A. Gear, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Thom McAn Shoe Company and Melville Corporation and Pagoda Trading Company, Inc.Federal Circuit· 1993-04-13· cited 179×
- Duraco Products, Inc. v. Joy Plastic Enterprises, Ltd., D/B/A Backyard Products Travis Products, IncThird Circuit· 1994-12-16· cited 163×
- Petersen Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Central Purchasing, Inc.Federal Circuit· 1984-07-03· cited 72×
- Jack T. Hupp and Walkmaker, Inc. v. Siroflex of America, Inc., Defendant/cross-AppellantFederal Circuit· 1997-09-04· cited 54×
- Vector Research, Inc. v. Howard & Howard Attorneys P.C.Sixth Circuit· 1996-02-14· cited 44×
- In re RosenCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1982-03-11· cited 41×
- High Point Design LLC v. Buyer's Direct, Inc.Federal Circuit· 2013-09-11· cited 36×
- Smith v. BrownVeterans Claims· 1996-02-14· cited 31×
- Mrc Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLPFederal Circuit· 2014-04-02· cited 25×
- In Re Joseph BordenFederal Circuit· 1996-09-17· cited 19×
- Mark R. Hoop and Lisa J. Hoop v. Jeffrey W. Hoop, Stephen E. Hoop, and Hoopsters Accessories, Inc.Federal Circuit· 2002-01-30· cited 18×
- In Re Sung Nam ChoFederal Circuit· 1987-02-02· cited 16×
- Dorman Products, Inc. v. Paccar, Inc.E.D. Pennsylvania· 2016-08-23· cited 16×
- Railroad Dynamics, Inc. v. A. Stucki Co.E.D. Pennsylvania· 1983-03-25· cited 15×
- In Re Bradley C. CarlsonFederal Circuit· 1993-02-01· cited 14×
- Lkq Corporation v. Gm Global Technology Operations LLCFederal Circuit· 2024-05-21· cited 12×
- M & R Marking Systems, Inc. v. Top Stamp, Inc.D. New Jersey· 1996-05-13· cited 7×
- Nordock Inc. v. Systems Inc.E.D. Wisconsin· 2013-02-26· cited 6×
Cites
19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court· 1966-02-21· cited 3,371×
- John K. Rains v. Cascade Industries, IncThird Circuit· 1968-11-13· cited 394×
- Schnading Corporation v. Gaines Manufacturing Co., Inc.Sixth Circuit· 1974-03-12· cited 73×
- Storey v. MayoSupreme Court· 1969-05-19· cited 60×
- Colorado Pump & Supply Co. v. Febco, Inc.Supreme Court· 1973-05-14· cited 56×
- Mayview Corp. v. RodsteinNinth Circuit· 1980-02-04· cited 46×
- Doss v. Lewis-Gale Hospital, Inc.Supreme Court· 1972-11-20· cited 42×
- John K. Rains v. Niaqua, Inc.Second Circuit· 1969-01-13· cited 31×
- Application of Erwine Laverne and Estelle LaverneCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1966-03-10· cited 28×
- Hadco Products, Inc. v. Walter Kidde & CompanyThird Circuit· 1972-06-16· cited 27×
- Clark Equipment Company and Clark Equipment, A. G., Appellants-Appellees v. Louis J. Keller and Cyril N. Keller, Appellees-AppellantsEighth Circuit· 1978-02-17· cited 27×
- Schwinn Bicycle Company v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber CompanyNinth Circuit· 1970-12-22· cited 26×
- Sidewinder Marine, Inc. v. Starbuck Kustom Boats and Products, Inc.Tenth Circuit· 1979-04-09· cited 17×
- Application of Angelo E. Bartlett and Elwood J. FletcherCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1962-04-11· cited 13×
- Application of Thomas LambCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1961-02-06· cited 12×
- Lancaster Colony Corporation v. Aldon Accessories, Ltd., and Royal London, Ltd.Second Circuit· 1974-12-02· cited 10×
- Application of Arthur S. Neave, JrCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1967-01-19· cited 5×
- Murray Fields, Consolidated Foods Corporation v. William E. Schuyler, JrD.C. Circuit· 1972-10-16· cited 3×
- In re SpreterCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1981-10-15· cited 2×
Sourced 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.