William E. Barrott, Sr., and William E. Barrott, Jr. v. The Drake Casket Company

Sixth Circuit

William E. Barrott, Sr., and William E. Barrott, Jr. v. The Drake Casket Company

297 F.2d 934, 132 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 364, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 6123

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·Decided January 24, 1962·No. 14405·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER.

THE ABOVE CAUSE came on to be heard upon the record, the briefs of the parties, and the arguments of counsel. The nature of this litigation, its issues of fact and the points of law involved are adequately set forth in the opinion of the District Judge. Upon a finding that a patent, relied upon by plaintiffs-appellants for a charge of infringement, was *935 invalid, he dismissed the complaint and gave judgment for defendant. From the record, briefs and arguments, it appears that the findings of fact of the District Judge are not clearly erroneous and are supported by the evidence. We agree with the District Judge’s conclusions of law.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the District Court be, and it is, hereby affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion of Senior District Judge Raymond Starr, reported as Barrott v. Drake Casket Company, D.C., 187 F.Supp. 284.

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

ORDER.

THE ABOVE CAUSE came on to be heard upon the record, the briefs of the parties, and the arguments of counsel. The nature of this litigation, its issues of fact and the points of law involved are adequately set forth in the opinion of the District Judge. Upon a finding that a patent, relied upon by plaintiffs-appellants for a charge of infringement, was *935 invalid, he dismissed the complaint and gave judgment for defendant. From the record, briefs and arguments, it appears that the findings of fact of the District Judge are not clearly erroneous and are supported by the evidence. We agree with the District Judge’s conclusions of law.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the District Court be, and it is, hereby affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion of Senior District Judge Raymond Starr, reported as Barrott v. Drake Casket Company, D.C., 187 F.Supp. 284.

William E. Barrott, Sr., and William E. Barrott, Jr. v. The Drake Casket Company, 297 F.2d 934, 132 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 364, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 6123 (6th Cir. 1962).

Pincite

297 F.2d 934 (William E. Barrott, Sr., and William E. Barrott, Jr. v. The Drake Casket Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related