Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• suggesting that it is usually the better practice for the district court to decide validity
• noting that it is “usually” the “better practice” to “inquir[e] fully into the validity of [the] patent”
• stating that the lower courts should inquire fully into the validity of the patent even if it is possible to dispose of the case on the ground of noninfringement
• suggesting that, in the interests of finality, it is usually the better practice for a district court to decide validity even if it has found non-infringement
• “of the two questions [concerning validity or infringement], validity has the greater public importance”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

324 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation
  Supreme Court· 1971-05-03· cited 2,250×
• Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. Roper
  Supreme Court· 1980-05-12· cited 1,115×
• United States v. Adams
  Supreme Court· 1966-02-21· cited 544×
• Cardinal Chemical Co. v. Morton International, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 1993-05-17· cited 519×
• Multiform Desiccants, Inc., Plaintiff-Cross v. Medzam, Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 1998-01-15· cited 323×
• Hilton Davis Chemical Co. v. Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1995-08-08· cited 220×
• In Re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation. Celanese Corporation and Fiber Industries, Inc. v. Leesona Corporation, Lex Tex Ltd., Inc.
  Fifth Circuit· 1976-08-04· cited 169×
• Lee v. Runge
  Supreme Court· 1971-10-19· cited 108×
• Park-In-Theatres, Inc. v. Perkins
  Ninth Circuit· 1951-06-22· cited 101×
• Trio Process Corporation, in No. 71-1295 v. L. Goldstein's Sons, Inc., in No. 71-1296
  Third Circuit· 1972-05-22· cited 100×
• Standard Brands, Inc. v. Smidler
  Second Circuit· 1945-08-10· cited 99×
• Harries v. Air King Products Co., Inc
  Second Circuit· 1950-06-20· cited 88×
• Beckman Instruments, Inc., and Leland C. Clark, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross v. Chemtronics, Inc. And J. Ryan Neville, Defendants-Appellees-Cross
  Fifth Circuit· 1970-06-19· cited 74×
• Royal Typewriter Co. v. Remington Rand, Inc.
  Second Circuit· 1948-05-21· cited 63×
• Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court
  California Supreme Court· 2004-03-01· cited 62×
• Powder Power Tool Corporation v. Powder Actuated Tool Company, Inc., and Frank J. Klunk
  Seventh Circuit· 1956-01-17· cited 57×
• Pointer v. Six Wheel Corporation
  Ninth Circuit· 1949-09-27· cited 57×
• Stewart-Warner Corp. v. Lone Star Gas Co.
  Fifth Circuit· 1952-06-10· cited 54×
• Kemart Corp. v. Printing Arts Research Laboratories, Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 1953-01-26· cited 52×
• The Schlegel Manufacturing Company v. Usm Corporation
  Sixth Circuit· 1976-04-05· cited 52×

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp.
  Supreme Court· 1942-01-05· cited 435×
• Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1945-01-08· cited 231×
• Slawson v. Grand Street Railroad
  Supreme Court· 1883-04-23· cited 122×
• Cover v. Schwartz
  Second Circuit· 1942-12-17· cited 117×
• Saranac Automatic MacHine Corp. v. Wirebounds Patents Co.
  Supreme Court· 1931-02-24· cited 68×
• Aero Spark Plug Co. v. BG Corporation
  Second Circuit· 1942-08-14· cited 68×
• Irvin v. Buick Motor Co.
  Eighth Circuit· 1937-03-16· cited 38×
• Honolulu Oil Corp. v. Halliburton
  Supreme Court· 1939-04-17· cited 25×
• Franklin v. Masonite Corp.
  Second Circuit· 1942-12-31· cited 19×
• Interchemical Corp. v. Sinclair & Carroll Co.
  Second Circuit· 1944-08-28· cited 9×
• Interchemical Corporation v. Sinclair & Carroll Co.
  S.D. New York· 1943-05-22· cited 4×

Other cases named Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.
  Supreme Court· 1944-12-11