HORACE B. BROSE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES-CROSS-APPELLANTS
HORACE B. BROSE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-CROSS APPELLEE,
SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES-CROSS-APPELLANTS
455 F.2d 769
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1972)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Topics
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Patent Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:
In this action for patent infringement, the district court held that the patent was valid but that it had not been infringed by Sears, Roebuck and Company. The patentee, Brose, appeals the finding of non-infringement, and Sears cross-appeals from the court’s holding that the patent is valid.
On the question of infringement we find substantial evidence to support the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. We affirm the district court’s holding that Sears did not infringe the Brose patent.
Having so held and on the facts of this case, we find it unnecessary to review the trial court’s determination that the patent is valid. Harries v. Air King Products Co., 2 Cir. 1950, 183 F. 2d 158; Marvin Glass & Assn. v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 5 Cir. 1971, 448 F. 2d 66 ; Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. Chemtronics, Inc., 5 Cir. 1970, 428 F. 2d 555.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Keystone Plastics, Inc. v. C & P Plastics, Inc., 506 F.2d 960 (5th Cir. 1975)
-
Brose v. Sears, 455 F.2d 763 (5th Cir. 1972)
-
Ramirez v. Perez, 457 F.2d 267 (5th Cir. 1972)
Authorities Cited
- Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. Chemtronics, Inc., 439 F.2d 1369 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Harries v. Air King Prods. Co., Inc., 183 F.2d 158 (2d Cir. 1950)