Signalite Fuse Co. v. Fuse Indicator Corp.

Third Circuit

Signalite Fuse Co. v. Fuse Indicator Corp.

174 F.2d 819, 81 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 422, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2282

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 5, 1949

DocketNo. 9783

StatusPublished

This text of 174 F.2d 819 (Signalite Fuse Co. v. Fuse Indicator Corp.) 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

Signalite Fuse Co. v. Fuse Indicator Corp., 174 F.2d 819, 81 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 422, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2282 (3d Cir. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal must be dismissed because the controversy between the parties, if any ever existed, has now become moot. The Trial Court held that there was no infringment by Signalite, the plaintiff in the declaratory judgment suit. The defendant did not appeal from this finding. So far as this patent is concerned, therefore, plaintiff’s fuse is free from attack by the defendant. And, of course, there cannot be any issue of damages for past conduct in the absence of infringement.

The Smalley patent, concerned in this controversy, was issued March 22, 1932 and expired March 22, 1949. 35 U.S.C.A. § 40. The plaintiff, then, has been adjudged not to have been an infringer during the life of the patent and it certainly cannot become one now that the patent has expired. We see no case or controversy between the parties and the litigation between them, therefore, must end. See Cover v. Schwartz, 2 Cir., 1942, 133 F.2d 541, 546, certiorari denied 1943, 319 U.S. 748, 63 S.Ct. 1158, 87 L.Ed. 1703.

The appeal will be dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal must be dismissed because the controversy between the parties, if any ever existed, has now become moot. The Trial Court held that there was no infringment by Signalite, the plaintiff in the declaratory judgment suit. The defendant did not appeal from this finding. So far as this patent is concerned, therefore, plaintiff’s fuse is free from attack by the defendant. And, of course, there cannot be any issue of damages for past conduct in the absence of infringement.

The Smalley patent, concerned in this controversy, was issued March 22, 1932 and expired March 22, 1949. 35 U.S.C.A. § 40. The plaintiff, then, has been adjudged not to have been an infringer during the life of the patent and it certainly cannot become one now that the patent has expired. We see no case or controversy between the parties and the litigation between them, therefore, must end. See Cover v. Schwartz, 2 Cir., 1942, 133 F.2d 541, 546, certiorari denied 1943, 319 U.S. 748, 63 S.Ct. 1158, 87 L.Ed. 1703.

The appeal will be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 F.2d 819, 81 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 422, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/signalite-fuse-co-v-fuse-indicator-corp-ca3-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack