Office Specialty Manuf'g Co. v. Globe Co.

Sixth Circuit

Office Specialty Manuf'g Co. v. Globe Co.

77 F. 465, 23 C.C.A. 242, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2260

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJuly 8, 1896

DocketNo. 313

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 77 F. 465 (Office Specialty Manuf'g Co. v. Globe 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

Office Specialty Manuf'g Co. v. Globe Co., 77 F. 465, 23 C.C.A. 242, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2260 (6th Cir. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

HAMMOND, J.

(after stating the facts as above). We have carefully read the record, including the evidence of the experts. We [469]*469aa?e compared the patents in the prior art with the patent sued on and the alleged infringing device1, and fully concur with the learned judge at the circuit in the view' that the pa tent, if valid, must be so limited in its scope that the defendant does not infringe. The reasons for this are so well stated in the opinion filed below that it is unnecessary for us to repeat them in a different form. We adopt the part of the opinion of the circuit court quoted above as the opinion of this court, and, without considering the question of laches in the disclaimer, we affirm the decree appealed from, with costs.

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

HAMMOND, J.

(after stating the facts as above). We have carefully read the record, including the evidence of the experts. We [469]*469aa?e compared the patents in the prior art with the patent sued on and the alleged infringing device1, and fully concur with the learned judge at the circuit in the view' that the pa tent, if valid, must be so limited in its scope that the defendant does not infringe. The reasons for this are so well stated in the opinion filed below that it is unnecessary for us to repeat them in a different form. We adopt the part of the opinion of the circuit court quoted above as the opinion of this court, and, without considering the question of laches in the disclaimer, we affirm the decree appealed from, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 F. 465, 23 C.C.A. 242, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-specialty-manufg-co-v-globe-co-ca6-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack