Fuel Economy Engineering Co. v. Berry

Third Circuit

Fuel Economy Engineering Co. v. Berry

254 F. 988, 166 C.C.A. 668, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1574

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJanuary 13, 1919

DocketNo. 2372

StatusPublished

This text of 254 F. 988 (Fuel Economy Engineering Co. v. Berry) 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

Fuel Economy Engineering Co. v. Berry, 254 F. 988, 166 C.C.A. 668, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1574 (3d Cir. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CCJRIAM.

By the decree of the District Court, claims 5, 10, 11, and 12 of letters patent No. 726,792, granted William' H. Berry, for a feed water regulator, were held valid and infringed. We affirm the decree on the court’s opinion. 248 Fed. 736. In order to allay the concern of the appellants that [989]*989this court might decide the case on matters outside the issues — matters concerning unfair competition, charged in the bill but abandoned at the trial— which they conceive improperly remained in the case and influenced the decision below, we say that, from our reading of the opinion, the case appears to have been decided solely on the issues of validity and infringement. But, if litigants read the opinion differently, we add that, notwithstanding we adopt the opinion of the trial judge, our affirmance of the decree is based on the issues raised on the patent and on nothing else. The decree helow Is affirmed.

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

PER CCJRIAM.

By the decree of the District Court, claims 5, 10, 11, and 12 of letters patent No. 726,792, granted William' H. Berry, for a feed water regulator, were held valid and infringed. We affirm the decree on the court’s opinion. 248 Fed. 736. In order to allay the concern of the appellants that [989]*989this court might decide the case on matters outside the issues — matters concerning unfair competition, charged in the bill but abandoned at the trial— which they conceive improperly remained in the case and influenced the decision below, we say that, from our reading of the opinion, the case appears to have been decided solely on the issues of validity and infringement. But, if litigants read the opinion differently, we add that, notwithstanding we adopt the opinion of the trial judge, our affirmance of the decree is based on the issues raised on the patent and on nothing else. The decree helow Is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 F. 988, 166 C.C.A. 668, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuel-economy-engineering-co-v-berry-ca3-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack