TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kinnear-Weed Corporation v. Humble Oil & Refining Company

KINNEAR-WEED CORPORATION, Appellant, v. HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY, Appellee

Kinnear-Weed Corp. v. Humble Oil & Ref. Co., 266 F.2d 352 (5th Cir. 1959)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 30, 1959
Docket
No. 16780
Judges
Rives, Jones, Wisdom
Citations
266 F.2d 352121 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 2401959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3943

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

We did not intend to read into the claims of appellant’s patent, as limitations of that patent, any part of the drawings or of the specifications not expressed or necessarily referred to by implication in those claims. In our opinion, the claims themselves of the reissue patent are limited to a combination rotary drilling tool, bit, or drill, and the patent has not been infringed by the appellee. We correct clerical errors in a sentence in the next to the concluding paragraph of the opinion reading, “We agree with the district court that the appellant has not infringed appellee’s patent” [ 259 F.2d 402 ] by changing the sentence to read “We agree with the district court that the appellee has not infringed appellant’s patent.” The petition for rehearing is Denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Fuller v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 259 F.2d 402 (5th Cir. 1958) 7

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