Tingue, Brown & Co. v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.

Third Circuit

Tingue, Brown & Co. v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.

283 F.2d 694, 127 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 475, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3179

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedNovember 29, 1960

Docket13234

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 283 F.2d 694 (Tingue, Brown & Co. v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.) 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

Tingue, Brown & Co. v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 283 F.2d 694, 127 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 475, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3179 (3d Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit for infringement of a patent. The claimed invention has to do with an improvement in the combination of articles used to cover ironing machines in laundries. The district judge decided for the defendant for the reason that the improvement involved no more than ordinary mechanical skill and did not *695 amount to an invention. D.C., 181 F. Supp. 134.

The opinion of the district judge thoroughly analyzes the problem involved, gives the history of the development of this art and correctly states the problem for decision. We agree with what he said and his analysis. To write a full opinion would do no more than paraphrase what has already been very well stated. The decision will be affirmed on the opinion written by Judge Morrill.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit for infringement of a patent. The claimed invention has to do with an improvement in the combination of articles used to cover ironing machines in laundries. The district judge decided for the defendant for the reason that the improvement involved no more than ordinary mechanical skill and did not *695 amount to an invention. D.C., 181 F. Supp. 134.

The opinion of the district judge thoroughly analyzes the problem involved, gives the history of the development of this art and correctly states the problem for decision. We agree with what he said and his analysis. To write a full opinion would do no more than paraphrase what has already been very well stated. The decision will be affirmed on the opinion written by Judge Morrill.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 F.2d 694, 127 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 475, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tingue-brown-co-v-raybestos-manhattan-inc-ca3-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack