Ethicon, Inc. v. Handgards, Inc.

Ninth Circuit

Ethicon, Inc. v. Handgards, Inc.

432 F.2d 438

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided January 5, 1971·No. 22985·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Ethicon’s Gerard patent No. 3,028,576 was held invalid because the trial court found that under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) there was prior public use for more than one year of the concept of the machine, the subject of the patent.

There is little or no direct contradiction in the oral evidence. In our view, we have a case that could have been decided either way. Ethicon contends the testimony of Handgards’ principal was too weak and impaired by certain circumstances. But the trial court was entitled to give more weight to other circumstances which point to Handgards’ version being correct.

The decree is affirmed because the findings are not clearly erroneous.

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

PER CURIAM:

Ethicon’s Gerard patent No. 3,028,576 was held invalid because the trial court found that under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) there was prior public use for more than one year of the concept of the machine, the subject of the patent.

There is little or no direct contradiction in the oral evidence. In our view, we have a case that could have been decided either way. Ethicon contends the testimony of Handgards’ principal was too weak and impaired by certain circumstances. But the trial court was entitled to give more weight to other circumstances which point to Handgards’ version being correct.

The decree is affirmed because the findings are not clearly erroneous.

Ethicon, Inc. v. Handgards, Inc., 432 F.2d 438 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

432 F.2d 438 (Ethicon, Inc. v. Handgards, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related