KINNEAR-WEED CORPORATION AND C. W. KINNEAR, PLIANTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
REED ROLLER BIT COMPANY ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
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 prior limitation of the patent claims to combination rotary drilling tools remains valid and binding.
Plaintiffs sued for patent infringement, but the accused devices were not combination bits as previously defined by the court. The plaintiffs argued t…
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 Law Of The Case Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is from the grant of a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendants in six civil actions claiming patent infringement.
The patent in suit, long since expired, was before this court in Kinnear-Weed Corporation v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 5 Cir., 1968, 259 F. 2d 398, reh. den. with opinion, 266 F. 2d 352 (5 Cir., 1959), corrected judgment entered, 296 F. 2d 215 (5 Cir., 1961). In the opinion on the petition for rehearing, we held that “. . . the claims themselves of the reissue patent are limited to a combination rotary drilling tool, bit, or drill . . .”. 266 F. 2d at 352.
It is undisputed that the accused bits are not combination bits within this prior holding. The combination bit described in our holding are those having both roller cutters and blade-type cutters. The accused bits have roller cutters but no blade-type cutters.
The position of appellants, although not clear from their brief but as we understood it on oral argument, is that our prior limitation to a combination bit is invalid in that it was rooted in Finding of Fact No. 65 of the district court in the original patent litigation, KinnearWeed Corporation v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., E.D.Tex., 1956, 150 F.Supp. 143, from which the aforesaid appeal was taken to this court. It is said that this finding was erroneous, and that we should now lift the limitation so as to include the accused bits.1 This we decline to do.
We find no merit in this appeal in any of the particulars asserted.
Affirmed.
. Appellees do not claim that this position is in violation of the injunction entered to prohibit the further litigation by Kinnear-Weed of certain issues respecting alleged fraud in connection with the original patent litigation in the district court. See Kinnear-Weed Corporation v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.. S.D.Tex., 1969, 324 F.Supp. 1371, aff’d, 441 F. 2d 631 (5 Cir., 1971), cert. den., 404 U.S. 941, 92 S.Ct. 285, 30 L.Ed.2d 255 (1971), reh. den., 404 U.S. 996, 92 S.Ct. 532, 30 L.Ed.2d 549 (1971).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kinnear-Weed Corp. v. Humble OIL & Ref. Co., 441 F.2d 631 (5th Cir. 1971)
- Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States, 404 U.S. 941 (U.S. 1971)
- Amoco Prod. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 404 U.S. 941 (U.S. 1971)
- Kinnear-Weed Corp. v. Humble OIL & Ref. Co., 259 F.2d 398 (5th Cir. 1958)
- Kinnear-Weed Corp. v. Humble OIL & Ref. Co., 296 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1961)
- Stanley v. United States, 404 U.S. 996 (U.S. 1971)
- Kinnear-Weed Corp. v. Humble OIL & Ref. Co., 266 F.2d 352 (5th Cir. 1959)
- Gilpin v. United States, 266 F.2d 352 (6th Cir. 1959)