Gibson v. Eastern Rim & Wheel Co.

Third Circuit

Gibson v. Eastern Rim & Wheel Co.

32 F.2d 774, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3883

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided January 21, 1929·No. No. 3820·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The underlying question in this ease was the validity of tile patent involved’ because of the novelty of its alleged invention. No principles of law are involved.

The court below discussed the questions involved with unusual detail and thoroughness in an exhaustive opinion. The court has had the benefit of an equally thorough presentation of the ease by counsel for plaintiff in oral argument and comprehensive brief, but such presentation and our own study of the record fails to convince us the trial judge was in error. In view of his able opinion, and finding ourselves in accord therewith, we adopt it as expressive of our view and limit ourselves to affirming the deeree based upon it.

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

PER CURIAM.

The underlying question in this ease was the validity of tile patent involved’ because of the novelty of its alleged invention. No principles of law are involved.

The court below discussed the questions involved with unusual detail and thoroughness in an exhaustive opinion. The court has had the benefit of an equally thorough presentation of the ease by counsel for plaintiff in oral argument and comprehensive brief, but such presentation and our own study of the record fails to convince us the trial judge was in error. In view of his able opinion, and finding ourselves in accord therewith, we adopt it as expressive of our view and limit ourselves to affirming the deeree based upon it.

Gibson v. Eastern Rim & Wheel Co., 32 F.2d 774, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3883 (3d Cir. 1929).

Pincite

32 F.2d 774 (Gibson v. Eastern Rim & Wheel Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related