Barry v. Chrysler Corp.

Seventh Circuit

Barry v. Chrysler Corp.

128 F.2d 618, 53 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 593, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 3657

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedMay 27, 1942

DocketNo. 7827

StatusPublished

This text of 128 F.2d 618 (Barry v. Chrysler Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barry v. Chrysler Corp., 128 F.2d 618, 53 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 593, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 3657 (7th Cir. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgm'ent dismissing for want of equity their complaint for infringement of Claims 5, 6, 7, and 9 of patent to Barry, number 1,422,167.

In Barry et al. v. Studebaker Corp., 7 Cir., 113 F.2d 400, this court held the same claims invalid for want of invention.

We have re-examined the record in that cause and carefully studied the one presented here. Plaintiffs relied upon the same claims in each cause; they offered the testimony of the same patent expert, substantially to the same effect in each. The same prior art was presented. So far as validity is in controversy the records are substantially identical.

Plaintiffs assert at great length that both the District Court and this court were wrong in the prior case, and attempt now to relitigate the issue of validity. Careful examination of the patent, in the light of Lefler, 775,831; Johnston and Kraner, 1,-382,089; Olsen, 1,213,241; Parker, 1,294,-825; Smith, 1,347,183; Baker, 1,123,065; Phipps, 735,812 and Custer, 1,150,103 is convincing that we were not in error in our previous decision. We adopt the analysis made by Judge Treanor and agree that no originality or novelty is disclosed in the claims relied upon.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgm'ent dismissing for want of equity their complaint for infringement of Claims 5, 6, 7, and 9 of patent to Barry, number 1,422,167.

In Barry et al. v. Studebaker Corp., 7 Cir., 113 F.2d 400, this court held the same claims invalid for want of invention.

We have re-examined the record in that cause and carefully studied the one presented here. Plaintiffs relied upon the same claims in each cause; they offered the testimony of the same patent expert, substantially to the same effect in each. The same prior art was presented. So far as validity is in controversy the records are substantially identical.

Plaintiffs assert at great length that both the District Court and this court were wrong in the prior case, and attempt now to relitigate the issue of validity. Careful examination of the patent, in the light of Lefler, 775,831; Johnston and Kraner, 1,-382,089; Olsen, 1,213,241; Parker, 1,294,-825; Smith, 1,347,183; Baker, 1,123,065; Phipps, 735,812 and Custer, 1,150,103 is convincing that we were not in error in our previous decision. We adopt the analysis made by Judge Treanor and agree that no originality or novelty is disclosed in the claims relied upon.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 F.2d 618, 53 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 593, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 3657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barry-v-chrysler-corp-ca7-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack