Electrofilm, Inc. v. Everlube Corporation of America, A. R. Booker and K. Taylor

265 F.2d 495, 121 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 167, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 5457
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 31, 1959
Docket15742
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 265 F.2d 495 (Electrofilm, Inc. v. Everlube Corporation of America, A. R. Booker and K. Taylor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Electrofilm, Inc. v. Everlube Corporation of America, A. R. Booker and K. Taylor, 265 F.2d 495, 121 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 167, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 5457 (9th Cir. 1959).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment wherein it is held that:

“United States Letters Patent No. 2,703,768 and each of the claims thereof are invalid for anticipation under subdivision (a), (b) and (g) of Section 102 of Title 35, U.S.C. and solely by reason of such invalidity plaintiff, Everlube Corporation of America, does not infringe said letters patent or any of the claims thereof.
“2. Defendant Cross-claimant, Elec-trofilm Inc., shall take nothing by its cross-claim against cross-defendants, Everlube Corporation of America, K. Taylor and A. R. Booker, and the same is hereby dismissed.
“3. No attorneys’ fees are awarded, and each party shall bear its own costs on the complaint and cross-claim.”

Specifications of error numbered 1, 2, and 3 have to do with the receiving in evidence of certain exhibits (47d, 47e and 47f, 40 g and 40f), and the receiving in evidence testimony of Morris Brown with respect to exhibits 47d, 47e and 47f.

We are of the opinion that the Trial Judge was fully justified in admitting in evidence the exhibits mentioned in specifications of error numbered 1 and 2 and in admitting the evidence of Morris Brown, so that he might have as complete a record as possible from which to determine the issues presented. Business Records Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1732, as amended 1951. Olender v. United States, 9 Cir., 1956, 237 F.2d 859; Lisansky v. United States, 4 Cir., 1929, 31 F.2d 846, 67 A.L.R. 67.

Specifications of error numbered 4 to 10 inclusive are fully covered by the Trial Court’s opinion reported in D.C., 154 *496 F.Supp. 788, which we adopt and make a part of this opinion.

To that opinion we would add only that “Hall” named in the opinion (first paragraph at page 791 of 154 F.Supp.) but otherwise unidentified, is R. D. Hall, the asserted inventor and assignor to Electro-film Inc., a corporation, of the United States Patent No. 2,703,768.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Maurice A. Garbell, Inc. v. Boeing Company
385 F. Supp. 1 (C.D. California, 1973)
Vilanova Mayén v. Secretario de Hacienda
83 P.R. Dec. 74 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1961)
La Maur, Inc. v. L. S. Donaldson Co.
190 F. Supp. 771 (D. Minnesota, 1961)
Piet v. United States
176 F. Supp. 576 (S.D. California, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
265 F.2d 495, 121 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 167, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 5457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/electrofilm-inc-v-everlube-corporation-of-america-a-r-booker-and-k-ca9-1959.