Safety-Armorite Conduit Co. v. Mark

Sixth Circuit

Safety-Armorite Conduit Co. v. Mark

207 F. 346, 125 C.C.A. 16, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1637

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJune 5, 1913

DocketNo. 2,342

StatusPublished

This text of 207 F. 346 (Safety-Armorite Conduit Co. v. Mark) 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

Safety-Armorite Conduit Co. v. Mark, 207 F. 346, 125 C.C.A. 16, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1637 (6th Cir. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

WARRINGTON, Circuit Judge.

This was a suit based upon the two claims of the Garland & Garland patent, No. 611,900, dated Oc[351]*351tober 4,. 1898. The patent relates to the treatment and enameling of metal surfaces, and particularly the interior surfaces of metal pipes. The complainant below holds the patent through assignment of the patentees. The defenses were anticipation and lack of invention. The cause was heard below on the usual pleadings and upon proofs taken by both parties. The validity of the patent and the charges of infringement of both claims were sustained, an accounting and injunction were granted, from which this appeal was allowed and is maintained. Judge Sater’s decree in the court below was the result of minute examination and a considered opinion. It is not necessary, however, to pass upon its entire reasoning. Our examination of the record leads us to a unanimous approval of the conclusion.

The decree is therefore affirmed, with costs.

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

WARRINGTON, Circuit Judge.

This was a suit based upon the two claims of the Garland & Garland patent, No. 611,900, dated Oc[351]*351tober 4,. 1898. The patent relates to the treatment and enameling of metal surfaces, and particularly the interior surfaces of metal pipes. The complainant below holds the patent through assignment of the patentees. The defenses were anticipation and lack of invention. The cause was heard below on the usual pleadings and upon proofs taken by both parties. The validity of the patent and the charges of infringement of both claims were sustained, an accounting and injunction were granted, from which this appeal was allowed and is maintained. Judge Sater’s decree in the court below was the result of minute examination and a considered opinion. It is not necessary, however, to pass upon its entire reasoning. Our examination of the record leads us to a unanimous approval of the conclusion.

The decree is therefore affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 F. 346, 125 C.C.A. 16, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/safety-armorite-conduit-co-v-mark-ca6-1913.