Kelley v. Atlantic City

Third Circuit

Kelley v. Atlantic City

89 F.2d 659, 32 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 584, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3554

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 11, 1937

DocketNo. 6219

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 F.2d 659 (Kelley v. Atlantic City) 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

Kelley v. Atlantic City, 89 F.2d 659, 32 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 584, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3554 (3d Cir. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

This case concerns the alleged infringement by Atlantic City in its traffic signal system of patent No. 1,132,186, granted Elmer W. Kelley. This pateñt has been the subject of litigation in Kelly v. City of Syracuse (D.C.) 47 F.(2d) 347; in Id. (C. C.A.) 47 F. (2d) 349; in Kelly v. City of New York (D.C.) 58 F.(2d) 831; in Kelley v. City of New York (C.C.A.) 63 F.(2d) 1007; and in Id., 290 U.S. 637, 54 S.Ct. 54, 78 L.Ed. 554. It has also been critically and satisfactorily discussed by the judge below in an exhaustive opinion. Reference to the latter avoids needless restatement by this court.

As we agree with the reasoning and conclusions there reached, we limit ourselves to affirming the case on such opinion, only adding thereto the basic consideration that Kelley’s patent was founded on the fact that the gist of his alleged invention was in pointing out one path for fire apparatus, ambulances, and the like, while Atlantic City’s system provided several shutoff roads which such apparatus could take.

So holding, the judgment below is affirmed.

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

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

This case concerns the alleged infringement by Atlantic City in its traffic signal system of patent No. 1,132,186, granted Elmer W. Kelley. This pateñt has been the subject of litigation in Kelly v. City of Syracuse (D.C.) 47 F.(2d) 347; in Id. (C. C.A.) 47 F. (2d) 349; in Kelly v. City of New York (D.C.) 58 F.(2d) 831; in Kelley v. City of New York (C.C.A.) 63 F.(2d) 1007; and in Id., 290 U.S. 637, 54 S.Ct. 54, 78 L.Ed. 554. It has also been critically and satisfactorily discussed by the judge below in an exhaustive opinion. Reference to the latter avoids needless restatement by this court.

As we agree with the reasoning and conclusions there reached, we limit ourselves to affirming the case on such opinion, only adding thereto the basic consideration that Kelley’s patent was founded on the fact that the gist of his alleged invention was in pointing out one path for fire apparatus, ambulances, and the like, while Atlantic City’s system provided several shutoff roads which such apparatus could take.

So holding, the judgment below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 F.2d 659, 32 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 584, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelley-v-atlantic-city-ca3-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack