TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Electrofilm, Inc. v. Everlube Corporation of America, A. R. Booker and K. Taylor

ELECTROFILM, INC., Appellant, v. EVERLUBE CORPORATION OF AMERICA, A. R. Booker and K. Taylor, Appellees

Electrofilm, Inc. v. Everlube Corp. of Am., A. R. Booker & K. Taylor, 265 F.2d 495 (9th Cir. 1959)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 31, 1959
Docket
No. 15742
Judges
Barnes, Hamley, Clark
Citations
265 F.2d 495121 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1671959 U.S. App. LEXIS 5457

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment wherein it is held that:

“United States Letters Patent No. 2,703,768 and each of the claims thereof are invalid for anticipation under subdivision (a), (b) and (g) of Section 102 of Title 35, U.S.C. and solely by reason of such invalidity plaintiff, Everlube Corporation of America, does not infringe said letters patent or any of the claims thereof.

“2. Defendant Cross-claimant, Elec-trofilm Inc., shall take nothing by its cross-claim against cross-defendants, Everlube Corporation of America, K. Taylor and A. R. Booker, and the same is hereby dismissed.

“3. No attorneys’ fees are awarded, and each party shall bear its own costs on the complaint and cross-claim.”

Specifications of error numbered 1, 2, and 3 have to do with the receiving in evidence of certain exhibits (47d, 47e and 47f, 40 g and 40f), and the receiving in evidence testimony of Morris Brown with respect to exhibits 47d, 47e and 47f.

We are of the opinion that the Trial Judge was fully justified in admitting in evidence the exhibits mentioned in specifications of error numbered 1 and 2 and in admitting the evidence of Morris Brown, so that he might have as complete a record as possible from which to determine the issues presented. Business Records Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1732 , as amended 1951. Olender v. United States, 9 Cir., 1956, 237 F.2d 859 ; Lisansky v. United States, 4 Cir., 1929, 31 F.2d 846 , 67 A.L.R. 67 .

Specifications of error numbered 4 to 10 inclusive are fully covered by the Trial Court’s opinion reported in D.C., 154 *496 F.Supp. 788, which we adopt and make a part of this opinion.

To that opinion we would add only that “Hall” named in the opinion (first paragraph at page 791 of 154 F.Supp.) but otherwise unidentified, is R. D. Hall, the asserted inventor and assignor to Electro-film Inc., a corporation, of the United States Patent No. 2,703,768.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1959: 11961: 21973: 119592026peak 1961 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Maurice A. Garbell, Inc. v. Boeing Company385 F. Supp. 1 (C.D. Cal. 1973)
  2. Piet v. United States176 F. Supp. 576 (S.D. Cal. 1959)
  3. Vilanova Mayén v. Secretario de Hacienda83 P.R. Dec. 74 (1961)
  4. La Maur, Inc. v. L. S. Donaldson Co.190 F. Supp. 771 (D. Minnesota 1961)

Most recent

  1. Maurice A. Garbell, Inc. v. Boeing Company385 F. Supp. 1 (C.D. Cal. 1973)
  2. Vilanova Mayén v. Secretario de Hacienda83 P.R. Dec. 74 (1961)
  3. La Maur, Inc. v. L. S. Donaldson Co.190 F. Supp. 771 (D. Minnesota 1961)
  4. Piet v. United States176 F. Supp. 576 (S.D. Cal. 1959)

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.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Lisansky v. United States, 31 F.2d 846 (4th Cir. 1929) 59
Olender v. United States, 237 F.2d 859 (9th Cir. 1956) 13
Erika, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala., 496 F. Supp. 786 (N.D. Ala. 1980) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list