Nungesser Electric Battery Co. v. National Carbon Co.

Sixth Circuit

Nungesser Electric Battery Co. v. National Carbon Co.

164 F. 1023, 90 C.C.A. 96, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4715

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMay 29, 1908

DocketNo. 1,768

StatusPublished

This text of 164 F. 1023 (Nungesser Electric Battery Co. v. National Carbon Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nungesser Electric Battery Co. v. National Carbon Co., 164 F. 1023, 90 C.C.A. 96, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4715 (6th Cir. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

RICHARDS, Circuit Judge.

This is a suit which involves the alleged infringement of patent No. 641,546 for a battery filler. The defendant, who hold patent No. 809,526, for a machine for filling dry batteries attacked the validity of the patent and denied any infringement. The court below (159 Fed. 57) reached the conclusion that the complainant’s patent was not anticipated and was valid, and, after a careful opinion, in which the details of the- two patents were compared, held there was infringement. It is unnecessary to recount the reasons given by the lower court. We content ourselves with affirming its decree on the authority of its opinion, which appears in the record.

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

RICHARDS, Circuit Judge.

This is a suit which involves the alleged infringement of patent No. 641,546 for a battery filler. The defendant, who hold patent No. 809,526, for a machine for filling dry batteries attacked the validity of the patent and denied any infringement. The court below (159 Fed. 57) reached the conclusion that the complainant’s patent was not anticipated and was valid, and, after a careful opinion, in which the details of the- two patents were compared, held there was infringement. It is unnecessary to recount the reasons given by the lower court. We content ourselves with affirming its decree on the authority of its opinion, which appears in the record.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 F. 1023, 90 C.C.A. 96, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nungesser-electric-battery-co-v-national-carbon-co-ca6-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack