Rogers v. Alemite Corp.

Third Circuit

Rogers v. Alemite Corp.

74 F.2d 1019, 24 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 3, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 4029

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided December 18, 1934·No. No. 5463·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this case, infringement, by the defendants, of certain claims of patent No. 1,307,-734, granted to Gullborg, was charged. On final hearing, the court held the patent valid and infringed.

The mechanism of the patent involved is described at length in Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Adams Grease Gun Corporation (C. C. A.) 52 F.(2d) 36, and reference thereto saves needless repetition. The questions involved in the present case were discussed by the court below in its opinion, and, as no new principle of patent law is involved and we find no error in that court’s view, we limit ourselves to affirming the case on the opinion of the trial judge (Alemite Corporation v. Rogers, 5 F. Supp. 940).

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

PER CURIAM.

In this case, infringement, by the defendants, of certain claims of patent No. 1,307,-734, granted to Gullborg, was charged. On final hearing, the court held the patent valid and infringed.

The mechanism of the patent involved is described at length in Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Adams Grease Gun Corporation (C. C. A.) 52 F.(2d) 36, and reference thereto saves needless repetition. The questions involved in the present case were discussed by the court below in its opinion, and, as no new principle of patent law is involved and we find no error in that court’s view, we limit ourselves to affirming the case on the opinion of the trial judge (Alemite Corporation v. Rogers, 5 F. Supp. 940).

Rogers v. Alemite Corp., 74 F.2d 1019, 24 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 3, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 4029 (3d Cir. 1934).

Pincite

74 F.2d 1019 (Rogers v. Alemite Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related