Scripto, Inc. v. Ferber Corporation

Third Circuit

Scripto, Inc. v. Ferber Corporation

267 F.2d 308, 121 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 339, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3884

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 13, 1959

Docket12763

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 267 F.2d 308 (Scripto, Inc. v. Ferber Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scripto, Inc. v. Ferber Corporation, 267 F.2d 308, 121 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 339, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3884 (3d Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant's mechanical patent, No. 2,748,748, and two design patents, Nos. 171,093 and 176,469, were held to be invalid by the district court, primarily because they are all covered by prior art. The record affords sound basis for these conclusions.

The trial judge did not, as asserted by appellant, ignore the presumption of validity attaching to appellant's patents. He did consider, and properly, the fact that a wealth of relevant prior art had not been called to the attention of the Examiner which circumstances detracted materially from the importance of the presumption in these instances. Dole Refrigerating Company v. Amerio Contact Plate Freezers, Inc., 3 Cir., 1959, 265 F.2d 627; Murray Company of Texas, Inc. v. Continental Gin Co., 5 Cir., 1959, 264 F.2d 65, 69.

The judgment will be affirmed upon the opinion of Judge Hartshorne in the district court.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant's mechanical patent, No. 2,748,748, and two design patents, Nos. 171,093 and 176,469, were held to be invalid by the district court, primarily because they are all covered by prior art. The record affords sound basis for these conclusions.

The trial judge did not, as asserted by appellant, ignore the presumption of validity attaching to appellant's patents. He did consider, and properly, the fact that a wealth of relevant prior art had not been called to the attention of the Examiner which circumstances detracted materially from the importance of the presumption in these instances. Dole Refrigerating Company v. Amerio Contact Plate Freezers, Inc., 3 Cir., 1959, 265 F.2d 627; Murray Company of Texas, Inc. v. Continental Gin Co., 5 Cir., 1959, 264 F.2d 65, 69.

The judgment will be affirmed upon the opinion of Judge Hartshorne in the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 F.2d 308, 121 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 339, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scripto-inc-v-ferber-corporation-ca3-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack