Horace B. Brose, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants

Fifth Circuit

Horace B. Brose, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants

455 F.2d 769, 172 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 458, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11585

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 28, 1972

Docket71-1906

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 455 F.2d 769 (Horace B. Brose, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Horace B. Brose, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, 455 F.2d 769, 172 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 458, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11585 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this action for patent infringement, the district court held that the patent was valid but that it had not been infringed by Sears, Roebuck and Company. The patentee, Brose, appeals the finding of non-infringement, and Sears cross-appeals from the court’s holding that the patent is valid.

On the question of infringement we find substantial evidence to support the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. We affirm the district court’s holding that Sears did not infringe the Brose patent.

Having so held and on the facts of this case, we find it unnecessary to review the trial court’s determination that the patent is valid. Harries v. Air King Products Co., 2 Cir. 1950, 183 F.2d 158; Marvin Glass & Assn. v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 5 Cir. 1971, 448 F.2d 66 [1971]; Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. Chemtronics, Inc., 5 Cir. 1970, 428 F.2d 555.

Affirmed.

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