Elliot B. Paley, Trustees v. Bethlehem Steel Company

First Circuit

Elliot B. Paley, Trustees v. Bethlehem Steel Company

209 F.2d 510, 100 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 153, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4577

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedJanuary 21, 1954

Docket4768_1

StatusPublished

This text of 209 F.2d 510 (Elliot B. Paley, Trustees v. Bethlehem Steel Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elliot B. Paley, Trustees v. Bethlehem Steel Company, 209 F.2d 510, 100 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 153, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4577 (1st Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

*511 PER CURIAM.

The complaint here sought injunctive relief and damages on account of an alleged infringement by defendant of Claims 10, 11, 12 and 13 of Reissue Patent No. 22,091 entitled “Sheathing System” granted to Nicholas Rippen on May 5, 1942. Without passing on issues of validity, the district court found, on ample evidence, that defendant’s methods and structures did not infringe any of the claims in suit. Judgment was therefore entered dismissing the complaint. We agree with the conclusion of the district court, and do not see that anything could be usefully added to the discussion in Judge Wyzanski’s opinion. 114 F.Supp. 579.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

*511 PER CURIAM.

The complaint here sought injunctive relief and damages on account of an alleged infringement by defendant of Claims 10, 11, 12 and 13 of Reissue Patent No. 22,091 entitled “Sheathing System” granted to Nicholas Rippen on May 5, 1942. Without passing on issues of validity, the district court found, on ample evidence, that defendant’s methods and structures did not infringe any of the claims in suit. Judgment was therefore entered dismissing the complaint. We agree with the conclusion of the district court, and do not see that anything could be usefully added to the discussion in Judge Wyzanski’s opinion. 114 F.Supp. 579.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 F.2d 510, 100 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 153, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliot-b-paley-trustees-v-bethlehem-steel-company-ca1-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack