Harris-Intertype Corporation v. Photon, Inc.

First Circuit

Harris-Intertype Corporation v. Photon, Inc.

349 F.2d 856, 146 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 621, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4566

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedAugust 30, 1965

Docket6482

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 349 F.2d 856 (Harris-Intertype Corporation v. Photon, 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

Harris-Intertype Corporation v. Photon, Inc., 349 F.2d 856, 146 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 621, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4566 (1st Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant makes only one substantial attack upon the judgment of the District Court holding Tansel patents No. 2,725,-803 and No. 2,896,523 invalid for lack of invention, Photon, Inc. v. Harris-Intertype Corporation, 235 F.Supp. 921 (1964). It is that the Court failed to recognize that the Tansel patents disclosed the photocell-slit control of the flash, which appellant asserts is the key to a commercially successful photocomposing machine. We do not so read the District Court’s opinion. In any event, we ourselves have carefully studied the record and are satisfied that the Tansel patents, construed to include the photocell-slit control, call for nothing more than a combination of elements shown by the prior art cited by the District Court to be old and producing no unexpected result. Accordingly, we agree with the conclusion of the District Court that both patents are invalid for lack of invention. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 71 S.Ct. 127, 95 L.Ed. 162 (1950); United Shoe Mach. Corp. v. Industrial Shoe Mach. Corp., 335 F.2d 577, 580 (1st Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 990, 85 S.Ct. 702, 13 L.Ed.2d 610 (1965); Associated Folding Box Co. v. Levkoff, 194 F.2d 252 (1st Cir. 1952); McCord Corp. v. Beacon Auto Radiator Co., 193 F.2d 985 (1st Cir. 1952).

Judgment will be entered affirming the judgments of the District Court.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant makes only one substantial attack upon the judgment of the District Court holding Tansel patents No. 2,725,-803 and No. 2,896,523 invalid for lack of invention, Photon, Inc. v. Harris-Intertype Corporation, 235 F.Supp. 921 (1964). It is that the Court failed to recognize that the Tansel patents disclosed the photocell-slit control of the flash, which appellant asserts is the key to a commercially successful photocomposing machine. We do not so read the District Court’s opinion. In any event, we ourselves have carefully studied the record and are satisfied that the Tansel patents, construed to include the photocell-slit control, call for nothing more than a combination of elements shown by the prior art cited by the District Court to be old and producing no unexpected result. Accordingly, we agree with the conclusion of the District Court that both patents are invalid for lack of invention. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 71 S.Ct. 127, 95 L.Ed. 162 (1950); United Shoe Mach. Corp. v. Industrial Shoe Mach. Corp., 335 F.2d 577, 580 (1st Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 990, 85 S.Ct. 702, 13 L.Ed.2d 610 (1965); Associated Folding Box Co. v. Levkoff, 194 F.2d 252 (1st Cir. 1952); McCord Corp. v. Beacon Auto Radiator Co., 193 F.2d 985 (1st Cir. 1952).

Judgment will be entered affirming the judgments of the District Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

349 F.2d 856, 146 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 621, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-intertype-corporation-v-photon-inc-ca1-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack