Fraver v. Studebaker Corp.

Third Circuit

Fraver v. Studebaker Corp.

208 F.2d 794

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJanuary 11, 1954

Docket11144_1

StatusPublished

This text of 208 F.2d 794 (Fraver v. Studebaker Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fraver v. Studebaker Corp., 208 F.2d 794 (3d Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for infringement of his patent on car heating, cooling and ventilating means. The case was tried before a jury which returned a general verdict in his favor in the sum of $79,250 with costs. Judgment was entered on this verdict.

Pursuant to defendant’s motion under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C., the District Court, by order, 112 F.Supp. 209, set aside the jury’s verdict and directed judgment in favor of the defendant. The District Court’s action was premised on its determination that plaintiff’s patent was invalid and moreover that it was not infringed by the defendant’s device.

After examining the briefs and the record and having considered the arguments of counsel, we are convinced that the District Court did not err. We need add nothing further to what has been so well stated by Judge Marsh in his analysis of the evidence and the applicable law, and accordingly, the order of the court below will be affirmed upon his opinion.

Each party to bear its own costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for infringement of his patent on car heating, cooling and ventilating means. The case was tried before a jury which returned a general verdict in his favor in the sum of $79,250 with costs. Judgment was entered on this verdict.

Pursuant to defendant’s motion under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C., the District Court, by order, 112 F.Supp. 209, set aside the jury’s verdict and directed judgment in favor of the defendant. The District Court’s action was premised on its determination that plaintiff’s patent was invalid and moreover that it was not infringed by the defendant’s device.

After examining the briefs and the record and having considered the arguments of counsel, we are convinced that the District Court did not err. We need add nothing further to what has been so well stated by Judge Marsh in his analysis of the evidence and the applicable law, and accordingly, the order of the court below will be affirmed upon his opinion.

Each party to bear its own costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 F.2d 794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fraver-v-studebaker-corp-ca3-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack