Lyon, Inc. v. Clayton & Lambert Mfg. Co.

Third Circuit

Lyon, Inc. v. Clayton & Lambert Mfg. Co.

90 F.2d 97, 33 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 9, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3771

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 16, 1937

DocketNo. 6206

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 90 F.2d 97 (Lyon, Inc. v. Clayton & Lambert Mfg. Co.) 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

Lyon, Inc. v. Clayton & Lambert Mfg. Co., 90 F.2d 97, 33 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 9, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3771 (3d Cir. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The two patents involved in this case were so thoroughly and satisfactorily discussed in the opinion of the trial judge, reported in (D.C.) 13 F.Supp. 331, that an additional opinion by this court affirming the decree below could be in substance only repetition.

The vital element which differentiated Lyon’s tire cover from the prior art was its resiliency, expansibility, and contractible power. These features enabled it to be expanded, snapped on the tire, and to hold itself in place, and this when inclosing^ different sizes of tires. These elements are not in the defendant’s box-like cover, which, although having some flexibility, has no retractile power. Moreover, it is clamped into place by a toggle lock.

So regarding, we affirm, on the opinion of the court below, its decree that the first patent was not infringed and the second was invalid for lack of -invention.

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

PER CURIAM.

The two patents involved in this case were so thoroughly and satisfactorily discussed in the opinion of the trial judge, reported in (D.C.) 13 F.Supp. 331, that an additional opinion by this court affirming the decree below could be in substance only repetition.

The vital element which differentiated Lyon’s tire cover from the prior art was its resiliency, expansibility, and contractible power. These features enabled it to be expanded, snapped on the tire, and to hold itself in place, and this when inclosing^ different sizes of tires. These elements are not in the defendant’s box-like cover, which, although having some flexibility, has no retractile power. Moreover, it is clamped into place by a toggle lock.

So regarding, we affirm, on the opinion of the court below, its decree that the first patent was not infringed and the second was invalid for lack of -invention.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 F.2d 97, 33 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 9, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lyon-inc-v-clayton-lambert-mfg-co-ca3-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack