Steel Union-Sheet Piling, Inc. v. United States

Court of Claims

Steel Union-Sheet Piling, Inc. v. United States

38 F. Supp. 713, 93 Ct. Cl. 611, 49 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 565, 1941 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 82

United States Court of Claims·Decided May 5, 1941·No. No. 43339·Published

Opinion

[627] Opinion

per curiam:

This suit is brought for the alleged infringement of a patent, the application for which was filed by Arthur Mauterer in 1925 and resulted in the patent in suit, No. 1,689,678, issued October 30, 1928. The findings show that this patent, together with all rights of action for past infringements was assigned to the plaintiff in this suit on October 17,1935.

The findings fully set out the subject matter of the patent and the nature of the patented structure, together with the claims of the patent upon which the suit is brought. It is not necessary, however, to go into detail in reference to these matters as the suit appears to have been abandoned. No argument has been made on behalf of the plaintiff, and the findings of the commissioner of this court, which we have adopted, show plainly that in view of the prior art the patent is invalid for lack of invention.

Plaintiff’s petition must be dismissed and it is so ordered.

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

[627] Opinion

per curiam:

This suit is brought for the alleged infringement of a patent, the application for which was filed by Arthur Mauterer in 1925 and resulted in the patent in suit, No. 1,689,678, issued October 30, 1928. The findings show that this patent, together with all rights of action for past infringements was assigned to the plaintiff in this suit on October 17,1935.

The findings fully set out the subject matter of the patent and the nature of the patented structure, together with the claims of the patent upon which the suit is brought. It is not necessary, however, to go into detail in reference to these matters as the suit appears to have been abandoned. No argument has been made on behalf of the plaintiff, and the findings of the commissioner of this court, which we have adopted, show plainly that in view of the prior art the patent is invalid for lack of invention.

Plaintiff’s petition must be dismissed and it is so ordered.

Steel Union-Sheet Piling, Inc. v. United States, 38 F. Supp. 713, 93 Ct. Cl. 611, 49 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 565, 1941 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 82 (cc 1941).

Pincite

38 F. Supp. 713 (Steel Union-Sheet Piling, Inc. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.