Hills v. Hamilton Watch Co.

Third Circuit

Hills v. Hamilton Watch Co.

252 F. 991, 164 C.C.A. 663, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2147

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 25, 1918

DocketNo. 2353

StatusPublished

This text of 252 F. 991 (Hills v. Hamilton Watch Co.) 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

Hills v. Hamilton Watch Co., 252 F. 991, 164 C.C.A. 663, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2147 (3d Cir. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We do not think it necessary to discuss again the questions that the District Court has already considered at length. 248 Fed. 499. The patent has expired, and nothing is now involved, except the right to an .account. Accordingly we express no opinion concerning laches or validity; it is enough to say that we do not find infringement. On this point we regard the prior art aS limiting the patent so narrowly that the defendant is free to use the two barrels that have been attacked.

The decree is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We do not think it necessary to discuss again the questions that the District Court has already considered at length. 248 Fed. 499. The patent has expired, and nothing is now involved, except the right to an .account. Accordingly we express no opinion concerning laches or validity; it is enough to say that we do not find infringement. On this point we regard the prior art aS limiting the patent so narrowly that the defendant is free to use the two barrels that have been attacked.

The decree is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 F. 991, 164 C.C.A. 663, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hills-v-hamilton-watch-co-ca3-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack