Container Company v. Carpenter Container Corporation
CONTAINER COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARPENTER CONTAINER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment holding defendant’s patent invalid. Judge Rodney in his excellent opinion in the District Court, 99 F.Supp. 167 , found as a fact that the essential elements of appellant’s combinations were all included in the prior art and that those combinations do not demonstrate the degree of novelty necessary to constitute patentable invention over the prior art. Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84, 91 , 62 S.Ct. 37 , 86 L.Ed. 58 ; Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 , 71 S.Ct. 127 , 95 L.Ed. 162 ; Boston Metals Co. v. Air Products, Inc., 4 Cir., 193 F.2d 535 . Our own study of the record satisfies us that his findings of fact have substantial foundation in the evidence and are not clearly wrong.
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.