Hardinge Company, Incorporated v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation

Third Circuit

Hardinge Company, Incorporated v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation

275 F.2d 37, 124 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 323, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5374

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedFebruary 15, 1960

Docket12983

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 275 F.2d 37 (Hardinge Company, Incorporated v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation) 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

Hardinge Company, Incorporated v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 275 F.2d 37, 124 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 323, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5374 (3d Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania which denied award of attorney fees in a patent case. The suit was the usual type for a patent infringement. The case went *38 through the process of discovery and there was a pre-trial conference and a pre-trial order. Facts appeared on which the defendant based a claim of misuse of patents and other matters. Following the pre-trial conference, the plaintiff moved to dismiss and the court granted the motion to dismiss but with prejudice. The court denied the defendant counsel fees under 35 U.S.C.A. § 285. Such an award is necessarily one based upon the court’s discretion and its consideration of what constitutes an exceptional case under the statute cited. We do not think that the exercise of the court’s discretion against such an award in this instance is one which we can say constituted an abuse of that discretion. The judgment will be 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 judgment of the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania which denied award of attorney fees in a patent case. The suit was the usual type for a patent infringement. The case went *38 through the process of discovery and there was a pre-trial conference and a pre-trial order. Facts appeared on which the defendant based a claim of misuse of patents and other matters. Following the pre-trial conference, the plaintiff moved to dismiss and the court granted the motion to dismiss but with prejudice. The court denied the defendant counsel fees under 35 U.S.C.A. § 285. Such an award is necessarily one based upon the court’s discretion and its consideration of what constitutes an exceptional case under the statute cited. We do not think that the exercise of the court’s discretion against such an award in this instance is one which we can say constituted an abuse of that discretion. The judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 F.2d 37, 124 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 323, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardinge-company-incorporated-v-jones-laughlin-steel-corporation-ca3-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack