Specmade Products, Inc. v. Barnett

Fifth Circuit

Specmade Products, Inc. v. Barnett

354 F.2d 229, 148 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 242

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 12, 1966

DocketNo. 21826

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 354 F.2d 229 (Specmade Products, Inc. v. Barnett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Specmade Products, Inc. v. Barnett, 354 F.2d 229, 148 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 242 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellants Specmade Products, Inc., and Richard G. Butler, brought an action against the appellees for infringement of a patent relating to a method of repairing punctures in tubeless •automobile tires without requiring the removal of the tire from the rim, and of patents on the equipment used for inserting a plug in the puncture in accordance with the method. Our examination of the record and briefs and our inspection of the exhibits have persuaded us of the correctness of the opinion of the district court, in which are incorporated its findings and conclusions, and which gives a full recital of the factual situation and a statement of the applicable law. It found that none of the patents were valid and that the issue of infringement was moot. Specmade Products, Inc., v. Barnett et al., D.C.N.D.Ga., 247 F. Supp. 75. We are in agreement with the determination made by the district court.

The appellees, by counterclaim, sought to recover attorneys' fees under the statute¹ providing for such an award in exceptional cases. The district court refused to make any award of attorney fees. The award of attorney fees under the statute is a matter within the discretion of the district court and its determination will be reversed on appeal only where an abuse of discretion is shown. Henry Hanger & Display Fixture Corporation v. Sel-O-Rak Corporation, 5th Cir. 1959, 270 F.2d 635. No such showing is made in this appeal.

The district court reached correct results in deciding the issues presented to it. Its judgment is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The appellants Specmade Products, Inc., and Richard G. Butler, brought an action against the appellees for infringement of a patent relating to a method of repairing punctures in tubeless •automobile tires without requiring the removal of the tire from the rim, and of patents on the equipment used for inserting a plug in the puncture in accordance with the method. Our examination of the record and briefs and our inspection of the exhibits have persuaded us of the correctness of the opinion of the district court, in which are incorporated its findings and conclusions, and which gives a full recital of the factual situation and a statement of the applicable law. It found that none of the patents were valid and that the issue of infringement was moot. Specmade Products, Inc., v. Barnett et al., D.C.N.D.Ga., 247 F. Supp. 75. We are in agreement with the determination made by the district court.

The appellees, by counterclaim, sought to recover attorneys' fees under the statute¹ providing for such an award in exceptional cases. The district court refused to make any award of attorney fees. The award of attorney fees under the statute is a matter within the discretion of the district court and its determination will be reversed on appeal only where an abuse of discretion is shown. Henry Hanger & Display Fixture Corporation v. Sel-O-Rak Corporation, 5th Cir. 1959, 270 F.2d 635. No such showing is made in this appeal.

The district court reached correct results in deciding the issues presented to it. Its judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 F.2d 229, 148 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/specmade-products-inc-v-barnett-ca5-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack