Laclede-Christy Company v. Union Fire Brick Company and Harry W. Walters

Third Circuit

Laclede-Christy Company v. Union Fire Brick Company and Harry W. Walters

194 F.2d 533, 92 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 291, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 4245

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedFebruary 28, 1952

Docket10548

StatusPublished

This text of 194 F.2d 533 (Laclede-Christy Company v. Union Fire Brick Company and Harry W. Walters) 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

Laclede-Christy Company v. Union Fire Brick Company and Harry W. Walters, 194 F.2d 533, 92 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 291, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 4245 (3d Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from the judgment of the District Court in a declaratory judgment proceeding that the appellants’ patent 1 was invalid “for lack of invention”. The District Court specifically found as a fact that the principles involved in the patent constituted “an improvement upon checker work then in use in the trade” but that they were the product of mechanical skill and not the product of inventive genius. We have examined the briefs and the record in this case and have carefully considered the arguments of the appellants. We are convinced that the findings of the District Court are amply sustained by the evidence. We need add nothing to what has been so well stated by Judge Clary in his exhaustive analysis of the evidence and the applicable law and accordingly the judgment of the Court below will be affirmed upon his opinion. 98 F.Supp-. 710.

1

. The Walters Patent No. 2,519,301. It discloses solid flue checker work made of two shapes of refractory brick or tile used in the operation of open hearth furnaces.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from the judgment of the District Court in a declaratory judgment proceeding that the appellants’ patent 1 was invalid “for lack of invention”. The District Court specifically found as a fact that the principles involved in the patent constituted “an improvement upon checker work then in use in the trade” but that they were the product of mechanical skill and not the product of inventive genius. We have examined the briefs and the record in this case and have carefully considered the arguments of the appellants. We are convinced that the findings of the District Court are amply sustained by the evidence. We need add nothing to what has been so well stated by Judge Clary in his exhaustive analysis of the evidence and the applicable law and accordingly the judgment of the Court below will be affirmed upon his opinion. 98 F.Supp-. 710.

1

. The Walters Patent No. 2,519,301. It discloses solid flue checker work made of two shapes of refractory brick or tile used in the operation of open hearth furnaces.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 F.2d 533, 92 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 291, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 4245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laclede-christy-company-v-union-fire-brick-company-and-harry-w-walters-ca3-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack