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

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided May 25, 1918·No. No. 2353·Published

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.

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

Pincite

252 F. 991 (Hills v. Hamilton Watch Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related