Automatic Devices Corp. v. Sinko Tool & Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court

Automatic Devices Corp. v. Sinko Tool & Manufacturing Co.

314 U.S. 94, 62 S. Ct. 42, 86 L. Ed. 65, 1941 U.S. LEXIS 1288, 51 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 277

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided November 10, 1941·No. 6·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Me. Justice Douglas

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a companion case to Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., ante, p. 84. The court below held that claims 2, 3, and 11 of the Mead patent (No. 1,736,544) were invalid and not infringed. 112 F. 2d 335. We granted the petition for certiorari limited to the question of validity of those claims. For the reasons stated in Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., supra, the judgment is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Me. Justice Douglas

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a companion case to Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., ante, p. 84. The court below held that claims 2, 3, and 11 of the Mead patent (No. 1,736,544) were invalid and not infringed. 112 F. 2d 335. We granted the petition for certiorari limited to the question of validity of those claims. For the reasons stated in Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., supra, the judgment is

Affirmed.

Automatic Devices Corp. v. Sinko Tool & Manufacturing Co., 314 U.S. 94, 62 S. Ct. 42, 86 L. Ed. 65, 1941 U.S. LEXIS 1288, 51 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 277 (1941).

Pincite

314 U.S. 94 (Automatic Devices Corp. v. Sinko Tool & Manufacturing Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related