Thomson Electric Welding Co. v. Barney & Berry, Inc.

First Circuit

Thomson Electric Welding Co. v. Barney & Berry, Inc.

236 F. 1022, 149 C.C.A. 671, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2378

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedJune 14, 1916

DocketNo. 1115

StatusPublished

This text of 236 F. 1022 (Thomson Electric Welding Co. v. Barney & Berry, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thomson Electric Welding Co. v. Barney & Berry, Inc., 236 F. 1022, 149 C.C.A. 671, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2378 (1st Cir. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully examined the Bouehayer French patent, No. 330,200, relied upon by the defendants, in their application for^leave to [1023]*1023apply to the District Court to amend their answer, as an anticipation of the patent in suit, No. 1,046,066, issued to Harmatta, and are of the opinion that it is not material upon the question, or at the least, that it does not present such clear and convincing proof as is calculated to bring about a different result from that reached in our opinion handed down in this case on the 5th day of October, 1915 (227 Fed. 428, 142 C. C. A. 124). It seems rather to present a device, the essential features, mode of operation, and the result of which are entirely different from those disclosed in the Harmatta patent. Application denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully examined the Bouehayer French patent, No. 330,200, relied upon by the defendants, in their application for^leave to [1023]*1023apply to the District Court to amend their answer, as an anticipation of the patent in suit, No. 1,046,066, issued to Harmatta, and are of the opinion that it is not material upon the question, or at the least, that it does not present such clear and convincing proof as is calculated to bring about a different result from that reached in our opinion handed down in this case on the 5th day of October, 1915 (227 Fed. 428, 142 C. C. A. 124). It seems rather to present a device, the essential features, mode of operation, and the result of which are entirely different from those disclosed in the Harmatta patent. Application denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 F. 1022, 149 C.C.A. 671, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomson-electric-welding-co-v-barney-berry-inc-ca1-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack