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

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided April 1, 1954·No. 11730·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

211 F.2d 650 (MacIte Corp. v. Davison) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related