Harry P. Locklin and Elmer J. Brant, General Partners, Dba Radiant Color Company v. Day-Glo Color Corp., Harry P. Locklin and Elmer J. Brant, General Partners, Dba Radiant Color Company v. Day-Glo Color Corp.

468 F.2d 1359 175 U.S.P.Q. 453 Harry P. LOCKLIN and Elmer J. Brant, General Partners, dba Radiant Color Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DAY-GLO COLOR CORP., Defendant-Appellee. Harry P. LOCKLIN and Elmer J. Brant, General Partners, dba Radiant Color Company, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DAY-GLO COLOR CORP., Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 26239 and 26266. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Oct. 6, 1972. Rehearing Denied Dec. 1, 1972. John R. Murtha (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants. Thomas V. Koykka (argued), Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant-appellee. Before LUMBARD, * MERRILL and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges. MERRILL, Circuit Judge: 1 This case has already been before the court three times. On the first occasion we upheld the validity of the Kazenas patent and found two resins manufactured and marketed by Locklin to be infringing. Locklin v. Switzer Bros., 299 F.2d 160 (9th Cir. 1961), cert. denied 369 U.S. 861 , 82 S.Ct. 950 , 8 L.Ed. 2d 18 (1962). On the second and third occasions we considered whether a resin known as "4-C" was also infringing. We held that it was. Locklin v. Switzer Bros., 348 F.2d 244 (9th Cir. 1965); Locklin v. Switzer Bros., 368 F.2d…