H. J. Heinz Company, a Corporation v. Charles H. Owens

Ninth Circuit

H. J. Heinz Company, a Corporation v. Charles H. Owens

191 F.2d 257, 91 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 154, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 4108

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 14, 1951

Docket12655_1

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 191 F.2d 257 (H. J. Heinz Company, a Corporation v. Charles H. Owens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

H. J. Heinz Company, a Corporation v. Charles H. Owens, 191 F.2d 257, 91 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 154, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 4108 (9th Cir. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

HASTIE, Circuit Judge.

Appellant’s separate petitions “For Correction of Errors” and “For Rehearing” assert among other things that this court has misconceived the factual basis and legal *258 holding of a state -court adjudication with reference to the matter in controversy. In one particular, appellant is correct. - Owens did not claim and the state court did not find that Heinz had actually infringed the Owens patent. Rather Owen’s claimed and the court found only a threatened infringement. However, nothing in our decision turns upon any difference between actual infringement and threatened infringement as a basis of adjudication in the state court. The important thing is the scope of the decree of the state court with reference to future infringement. On that point, despite appellant’s renewed urging to the contrary, we understand the action of the state court to have been as heretofore stated in our opinion in this oase. Therefore, save for the foregoing explanatory and corrective supplementation, we adhere to our disposition of this appeal and deny the Petitions for Rehearing and for Correction of Errors.

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

HASTIE, Circuit Judge.

Appellant’s separate petitions “For Correction of Errors” and “For Rehearing” assert among other things that this court has misconceived the factual basis and legal *258 holding of a state -court adjudication with reference to the matter in controversy. In one particular, appellant is correct. - Owens did not claim and the state court did not find that Heinz had actually infringed the Owens patent. Rather Owen’s claimed and the court found only a threatened infringement. However, nothing in our decision turns upon any difference between actual infringement and threatened infringement as a basis of adjudication in the state court. The important thing is the scope of the decree of the state court with reference to future infringement. On that point, despite appellant’s renewed urging to the contrary, we understand the action of the state court to have been as heretofore stated in our opinion in this oase. Therefore, save for the foregoing explanatory and corrective supplementation, we adhere to our disposition of this appeal and deny the Petitions for Rehearing and for Correction of Errors.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 F.2d 257, 91 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 154, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 4108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/h-j-heinz-company-a-corporation-v-charles-h-owens-ca9-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack