MacIte Corp. v. Davison

D.C. Circuit

MacIte Corp. v. Davison

211 F.2d 650, 94 U.S. App. D.C. 40, 101 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 106, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2600

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 1, 1954

Docket11730

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 211 F.2d 650 (MacIte Corp. v. Davison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MacIte Corp. v. Davison, 211 F.2d 650, 94 U.S. App. D.C. 40, 101 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 106, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2600 (D.C. Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM..

Appellant corporation, as assignee-licensee of Letters Patent No. 2,-078,264, sued appellees, alleging that the latter were manufacturing and selling the patented product without permission or right. Appellant asked an injunction and an accounting. The District Court, after hearing without a jury the evidence offered by plaintiff-appellant, dismissed the complaint.

After considering the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff-appellant, Higashi v. Shifflett, 1952, 90 U.S. App.D.C. 302, 195 F.2d 784, we have concluded that a prima facie case was not made out. The judgment must accordingly be

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM..

Appellant corporation, as assignee-licensee of Letters Patent No. 2,-078,264, sued appellees, alleging that the latter were manufacturing and selling the patented product without permission or right. Appellant asked an injunction and an accounting. The District Court, after hearing without a jury the evidence offered by plaintiff-appellant, dismissed the complaint.

After considering the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff-appellant, Higashi v. Shifflett, 1952, 90 U.S. App.D.C. 302, 195 F.2d 784, we have concluded that a prima facie case was not made out. The judgment must accordingly be

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 F.2d 650, 94 U.S. App. D.C. 40, 101 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 106, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macite-corp-v-davison-cadc-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack