Industrial Instrument Corporation v. The Foxboro Company

Fifth Circuit

Industrial Instrument Corporation v. The Foxboro Company

310 F.2d 686

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 15, 1963

Docket18866

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 310 F.2d 686 (Industrial Instrument Corporation v. The Foxboro Company) 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

Industrial Instrument Corporation v. The Foxboro Company, 310 F.2d 686 (5th Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It is ordered that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be, and the same is, hereby denied.

Our opinion of September 6, 1962 is modified as follows with reference to the holding relative to infringement of claim 6 of patent 2,762,393. The stop or stacking rings in the accused device are the equivalent in function and result of the valve means set out in claim 6. The recited valve means is the over range stop which halts movement of the end wall of the low pressure bellows to prevent rupturing when the bellows is subjected to excessive pressure. The Union Paper Bag Machine Company v. Murphy, 1878, 97 U.S. 120, 24 L.Ed. 935; Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 1949, 339 U.S. 605, 70 S.Ct. 854, 94 L.Ed. 1097; and Bryan v. Sid W. Richardson, Inc., 5 Cir., 1958, 254 F.2d 191. Such finding as the trial court made to the contrary in this regard is clearly erroneous to the extent necessary to hold it so. See footnote 2, main opinion. This is in light of the fact that appellant was entitled to a wider range of equivalents than that accorded by the court.

The accused device embodies equivalents of all of the elements of the claim. No single element is omitted. The claim was infringed by the accused device. Walker on Patents (Deller’s Edition) § 482.

Costs are taxed one half on appellant and one half on appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

It is ordered that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be, and the same is, hereby denied.

Our opinion of September 6, 1962 is modified as follows with reference to the holding relative to infringement of claim 6 of patent 2,762,393. The stop or stacking rings in the accused device are the equivalent in function and result of the valve means set out in claim 6. The recited valve means is the over range stop which halts movement of the end wall of the low pressure bellows to prevent rupturing when the bellows is subjected to excessive pressure. The Union Paper Bag Machine Company v. Murphy, 1878, 97 U.S. 120, 24 L.Ed. 935; Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 1949, 339 U.S. 605, 70 S.Ct. 854, 94 L.Ed. 1097; and Bryan v. Sid W. Richardson, Inc., 5 Cir., 1958, 254 F.2d 191. Such finding as the trial court made to the contrary in this regard is clearly erroneous to the extent necessary to hold it so. See footnote 2, main opinion. This is in light of the fact that appellant was entitled to a wider range of equivalents than that accorded by the court.

The accused device embodies equivalents of all of the elements of the claim. No single element is omitted. The claim was infringed by the accused device. Walker on Patents (Deller’s Edition) § 482.

Costs are taxed one half on appellant and one half on appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

310 F.2d 686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/industrial-instrument-corporation-v-the-foxboro-company-ca5-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack