Kinnear-Weed Corporation v. Humble Oil & Refining Company

266 F.2d 352, 121 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 240, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3943
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 30, 1959
Docket16780
StatusPublished

This text of 266 F.2d 352 (Kinnear-Weed Corporation v. Humble Oil & Refining 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
Kinnear-Weed Corporation v. Humble Oil & Refining Company, 266 F.2d 352, 121 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 240, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3943 (5th Cir. 1959).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We did not intend to read into the claims of appellant’s patent, as limitations of that patent, any part of the drawings or of the specifications not expressed or necessarily referred to by implication in those claims. In our opinion, the claims themselves of the reissue patent are limited to a combination rotary drilling tool, bit, or drill, and the patent has not been infringed by the appellee. We correct clerical errors in a sentence in the next to the concluding paragraph of the opinion reading, “We agree with the district court that the appellant has not infringed appellee’s patent” [259 F.2d 402] by changing the sentence to read “We agree with the district court that the appellee has not infringed appellant’s patent.” The petition for rehearing is

Denied.

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

Related

Robert L. Fuller v. Aetna Life Insurance Company
259 F.2d 402 (Fifth Circuit, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
266 F.2d 352, 121 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 240, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinnear-weed-corporation-v-humble-oil-refining-company-ca5-1959.