BARRY ET AL.
v.
CHRYSLER CORPORATION ET AL. (BUDD WHEEL CO., INTERVENER)
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the patent claims at issue were invalid for want of invention, affirming the dismissal of the infringement complaint.
Plaintiffs appealed a judgment dismissing their complaint for infringement of specific patent claims. The same claims had previously been held invalid…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Want Of Invention cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs appeal from a judgm'ent dismissing for want of equity their complaint for infringement of Claims 5, 6, 7, and 9 of patent to Barry, number 1,422,167.
In Barry et al. v. Studebaker Corp., 7 Cir., 113 F. 2d 400, this court held the same claims invalid for want of invention.
We have re-examined the record in that cause and carefully studied the one presented here. Plaintiffs relied upon the same claims in each cause; they offered the testimony of the same patent expert, substantially to the same effect in each. The same prior art was presented. So far as validity is in controversy the records are substantially identical.
Plaintiffs assert at great length that both the District Court and this court were wrong in the prior case, and attempt now to relitigate the issue of validity. Careful examination of the patent, in the light of Lefler, 775,831; Johnston and Kraner, 1,-382,089; Olsen, 1,213,241; Parker, 1,294,-825; Smith, 1,347,183; Baker, 1,123,065; Phipps, 735,812 and Custer, 1,150,103 is convincing that we were not in error in our previous decision. We adopt the analysis made by Judge Treanor and agree that no originality or novelty is disclosed in the claims relied upon.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Maresi, 156 F.2d 929 (2d Cir. 1946)
-
Commissioner OF Internal Revenue v. Est. of Carlton A. Shively, 276 F.2d 372 (2d Cir. 1960)
-
Du Charme's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 164 F.2d 959 (6th Cir. 1947)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Barry v. Studebaker Corp., 113 F.2d 400 (7th Cir. 1940)