U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1973

Micro-Magnetic Industries, Inc. v. Ardac, Inc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided November 2, 1973 · Chambers, Duniway, Skopil

488 F.2d 770; 179 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 715 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Carl Hoppe (argued), San Francisco, Cal., Edwin W. Oldham, Akron, Ohio, for appellants., Karl A. Limbach (argued), Limbach, Limbach & Sutton, Jesse Feldman, Feld-man, Waldman & Kline, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision. The 3 that cite it most often are listed here.

Sauquoit Fibers Co. v. Leesona Corp. (5th Cir. 1974)
Micro-Magnetic Industries, Inc., a Corporation v. Advance Automatic Sales Co., Inc. (9th Cir. 1973)
Medtronic, Inc. v. Catalyst Research Corp. (D. Minn. 1982)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

SKOPIL, District Judge:

Appellee, Micro-Magnetic Industries, Inc., sued appellants, Ardac, Inc. and its subsidiaries, for infringement of United States Patent No. 2,964,641, referred to as the ‘Selgin II patent.

The suit upon the Selgin II invention was tried before the court which found that the Ardac machine infringed Claims 1, 4 and 5 of United States Patent No. 2,964,641. The court enjoined the defendants from infringing Claims 1, 4 and 5 without a license from Micro-Magnetic, and awarded damages for infringement based upon four percent of the price of Ardae’s machine. Ardac appeals from that judgment.

Having reviewed the record, we have concluded that the trial court’s findings of fact are clearly supported by the evidence. We agree with the trial judge’s opinion and affirm the case on the authority thereof. That opinion is reported at 372 F.Supp. 477 (D.C. 1972).

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.