Denaro v. Maryland Baking Co.

50 F.2d 1074, 10 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 80, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 4666
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 17, 1931·No. No. 3151·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The main contention of appellant on this appeal is that the court below in its opinion (Denaro v. Maryland Baking Co., 40 F.(2d) 513) erroneously applied the principles laid down in the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co., 270 U. S. 390, 46 S. Ct. 324, 70 L. Ed. 651. A careful consideration of the briefs and argument before us, and a study of the record, lead us to the conclusion that the judge below not only properly applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the Milbum Case, but also reached the correct conclusion on the merits. The judge below had the advantage of seeing machines used by the appellee in actual operation, and his conclusion should be given all the more weight because of that fact.

The questions raised by the counterclaim of defendant are not before us, as defendant [1075] did not appeal; but, so far as tbe opinion of the judge below relates to the patents relied on by complainant and the alleged infringement thereof, same is adopted as the opinion of this court, and the decree below will accordingly be affirmed.

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

Denaro v. Maryland Baking Co., 50 F.2d 1074, 10 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 80, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 4666 (4th Cir. 1931).

50 F.2d 1074 (Denaro v. Maryland Baking Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

W. F. & John Barnes Co. v. International Harvester Co.
51 F. Supp. 254 (N.D. Illinois, 1943)
Penmac Corp. v. Esterbrook Steel Pen Mfg. Co.
108 F.2d 695 (Second Circuit, 1940)
Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Coe
100 F.2d 429 (D.C. Circuit, 1938)