Tower v. Hobbs

First Circuit

Tower v. Hobbs

129 F. 918, 64 C.C.A. 478, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4110

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedMay 5, 1904

DocketNo. 515

StatusPublished

This text of 129 F. 918 (Tower v. Hobbs) 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

Tower v. Hobbs, 129 F. 918, 64 C.C.A. 478, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4110 (1st Cir. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

LOWELL, District Judge.

The question here raised was decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Tower v. Eagle Pencil Co., 94 Fed. 361, 36 C. C. A. 294. Upon consideration we find no reason to differ from that court in its conclusion that a pen precisely like the defendant’s, here in evidence, did not infringe the patent in suit. Concerning the validity of that patent we express no opinion.

The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed, and the appellee recovers his costs of appeal.

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

LOWELL, District Judge.

The question here raised was decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Tower v. Eagle Pencil Co., 94 Fed. 361, 36 C. C. A. 294. Upon consideration we find no reason to differ from that court in its conclusion that a pen precisely like the defendant’s, here in evidence, did not infringe the patent in suit. Concerning the validity of that patent we express no opinion.

The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed, and the appellee recovers his costs of appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 F. 918, 64 C.C.A. 478, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tower-v-hobbs-ca1-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack