L. H. Gilmer Co. v. Geisel

Third Circuit

L. H. Gilmer Co. v. Geisel

187 F. 941, 109 C.C.A. 620, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4261

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 25, 1911

DocketNo. 34

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 187 F. 941 (L. H. Gilmer Co. v. Geisel) 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

L. H. Gilmer Co. v. Geisel, 187 F. 941, 109 C.C.A. 620, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4261 (3d Cir. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In the court below, the T- H. Gilmer Company, the owner of patent No. 723,379, granted March 24, 1903, to T. H. Gilmer, for an improvement in 'belting, 'filed a bill against Otto Geisel, charging him with infringing the seventh claim thereof. That, court found Geisel did not infringe, and from a decree dismissing the bill the Gilmer Company appealed to this court

The subject-matter of the case is so fully and satisfactorily stated by the court below in its opinion that a further opinion by this court could be but a repetition. We content ourselves with stating that in our judgment the decree of dismissal entered by the court below might well have been justified on the ground of claim 7 being invalid, as not predicated on any disclosure of the subject-matter thereof in the spec? ification. Hestonville, etc., Ry. Co. v. McDuffee, 185 Fed. 798; Rail[942]*942way Co. v. Sayles, 97 U. S. 554, 24 L. Ed. 1053; Eagleton Mfg. Co. v. West, 111 U. S. 490, 4 Sup. Ct. 593, 28 L. Ed. 493. We deem-it proper to add that Geisel claims to be operating under patent to him, No. 726,670. Upon the question of the validity of that patent, or its scope, we express no opinion.

The decree of the court below dismissing this bill, is affirmed.

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

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In the court below, the T- H. Gilmer Company, the owner of patent No. 723,379, granted March 24, 1903, to T. H. Gilmer, for an improvement in 'belting, 'filed a bill against Otto Geisel, charging him with infringing the seventh claim thereof. That, court found Geisel did not infringe, and from a decree dismissing the bill the Gilmer Company appealed to this court

The subject-matter of the case is so fully and satisfactorily stated by the court below in its opinion that a further opinion by this court could be but a repetition. We content ourselves with stating that in our judgment the decree of dismissal entered by the court below might well have been justified on the ground of claim 7 being invalid, as not predicated on any disclosure of the subject-matter thereof in the spec? ification. Hestonville, etc., Ry. Co. v. McDuffee, 185 Fed. 798; Rail[942]*942way Co. v. Sayles, 97 U. S. 554, 24 L. Ed. 1053; Eagleton Mfg. Co. v. West, 111 U. S. 490, 4 Sup. Ct. 593, 28 L. Ed. 493. We deem-it proper to add that Geisel claims to be operating under patent to him, No. 726,670. Upon the question of the validity of that patent, or its scope, we express no opinion.

The decree of the court below dismissing this bill, is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 F. 941, 109 C.C.A. 620, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/l-h-gilmer-co-v-geisel-ca3-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack