Porter v. Single-Tube Automobile & Bicycle Tire Co.

First Circuit

Porter v. Single-Tube Automobile & Bicycle Tire Co.

112 F. 423, 50 C.C.A. 317, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4111

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedDecember 12, 1901

DocketNo. 362

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 F. 423 (Porter v. Single-Tube Automobile & Bicycle Tire Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Porter v. Single-Tube Automobile & Bicycle Tire Co., 112 F. 423, 50 C.C.A. 317, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4111 (1st Cir. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It was not contended at the hearing, either in the court below or before us, that the publication by Boothroyd of [424]*424.December-3, '1890, anticipated the invention, in litigation. Neither •■are we sufficiently advised .whether the record is in condition to properly. determine such a contention, if made. We give no - intimation of What opr conclusion would be if, in these respects, the conditions were other than they are. We are of the opinion that claim 2 fully ■and correctly represents the invention of the patent, and that claim •I. is too broad to be valid. With these reservations, after thorough ¡examination and careful consideration of the record, we concur in ■the- conclusion of the circuit court, and with the line of reasoning by ¡which the conclusion was reached.

..¡The decree of the circuit court is modified so far as to adjudge claim 1 invalid, and the case is remanded to that court, with directions to proceed accordingly; and the appellee recovers the costs of ap■p.eal. ■

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

PER CURIAM.

It was not contended at the hearing, either in the court below or before us, that the publication by Boothroyd of [424]*424.December-3, '1890, anticipated the invention, in litigation. Neither •■are we sufficiently advised .whether the record is in condition to properly. determine such a contention, if made. We give no - intimation of What opr conclusion would be if, in these respects, the conditions were other than they are. We are of the opinion that claim 2 fully ■and correctly represents the invention of the patent, and that claim •I. is too broad to be valid. With these reservations, after thorough ¡examination and careful consideration of the record, we concur in ■the- conclusion of the circuit court, and with the line of reasoning by ¡which the conclusion was reached.

..¡The decree of the circuit court is modified so far as to adjudge claim 1 invalid, and the case is remanded to that court, with directions to proceed accordingly; and the appellee recovers the costs of ap■p.eal. ■

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 F. 423, 50 C.C.A. 317, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-single-tube-automobile-bicycle-tire-co-ca1-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack