H. C. Baxter & Bro. v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc.

First Circuit

H. C. Baxter & Bro. v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc.

352 F.2d 87, 147 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 233

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedOctober 29, 1965

Docket6516

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 352 F.2d 87 (H. C. Baxter & Bro. v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc.) 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

H. C. Baxter & Bro. v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., 352 F.2d 87, 147 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 233 (1st Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a finding of invalidity of a process patent for pretreating French fried potatoes so they will fry to a substantially even color. The facts and an extensive discussion are found in the opinion of the district court, 236 F. Supp. 601. Without deciding whether the evidence justified a conclusion that the patent claims in suit are invalid because wholly inoperative, we think the evidence supports the court’s holding that they are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because of the extent of experimentation required of one skilled in the art in order to ascertain their “teaching.”

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a finding of invalidity of a process patent for pretreating French fried potatoes so they will fry to a substantially even color. The facts and an extensive discussion are found in the opinion of the district court, 236 F. Supp. 601. Without deciding whether the evidence justified a conclusion that the patent claims in suit are invalid because wholly inoperative, we think the evidence supports the court’s holding that they are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because of the extent of experimentation required of one skilled in the art in order to ascertain their “teaching.”

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

352 F.2d 87, 147 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/h-c-baxter-bro-v-the-great-atlantic-pacific-tea-company-inc-ca1-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack