Scott v. Harman
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record and on the briefs and oral arguments of attorneys for the contending parties;
And it appearing that the District Court held valid and infringed Claims 1 and 2 of the patent in suit, Harman No. 2,142,-896, relating to improvements in fastening; ordered a reference to a Master for an accounting of damages; and granted a permanent injunction against further infringement by appellant or his agents;
And it appearing that the findings of fact of the District Court upon which its conclusions of law and decision were based are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous;
And it appearing from the carefully prepared decision of the District Court, 90 F.Supp. 486 , in which the prior art was detailed and held not anticipatory of the patent in suit, that the reasoning of the court upon the principles of law applicable to the facts found was sound and valid in law;
The judgment from which this appeal was taken is hereby ordered to be affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Stamicarbon, N v. V. Escambia Chemical Corporation
- Engineered Mechanical Services, Inc. v. Applied Mechanical Technology, Inc.
- Metalock Repair Service, Inc., and Lois R. Morrison v. Hal W. Harman
- Monroe Auto Equipment Co. v. Heckerthorn Manufacturing & Supply Co.
- Metalock Repair Service, Inc. And Lois R. Morrison v. Hal W. Harman
- Wittlin v. Remco, Inc.
Most recent
- Engineered Mechanical Services, Inc. v. Applied Mechanical Technology, Inc.
- Stamicarbon, N v. V. Escambia Chemical Corporation
- Monroe Auto Equipment Co. v. Heckerthorn Manufacturing & Supply Co.
- Atlas Specialty Manufacturing Co. v. Farber Brothers, Inc.
- Metalock Repair Service, Inc., and Lois R. Morrison v. Hal W. Harman
- Metalock Repair Service, Inc. And Lois R. Morrison v. Hal W. Harman
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.