Fretwell v. Gillette Safety Razor Co., 5645.
Decision Date | 23 July 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 5645.,5645. |
Parties | FRETWELL v. GILLETTE SAFETY RAZOR CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Herbert J. Jacobi, of Washington, D. C., Israel H. Perskin, of New York City, and Wm. G. Mahaffy, of Wilmington, Del., for appellant.
George P. Dike and Cedric W. Porter, both of Boston, Mass., for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, DAVIS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
In the court below Julian W. Fretwell charged Gillette Safety Razor Company with infringing claim 4 of the patent No. 1,467,930, granted to him September 11, 1923, for a locked razor. On final hearing that court held the defendant did not infringe. Whereupon plaintiff took this appeal. The opinion of the court is so exhaustive as to leave nothing to be said by this court save by way of repetition.
The patent was, as stated, for a locked razor. With that razor as a whole we have nothing to do in this case save to note that no such razor has been made in the thirteen years of the patent's existence.
The specification describes and illustrates the blade as follows:
In this specification, claim 4, which reads as follows: "As a new article of manufacture, a transversely flexible razor blade having a sharpened edge and also having adjacent to said edge a multiplicity of minute, closely arranged apertures," was granted, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fretwell v. Gillette Safety Razor Co.
...claim was not infringed by blades of plaintiff's manufacture. Fretwell v. Gillette Safety Razor Co., D.C., 6 F.Supp. 818, affirmed, 3 Cir., 78 F.2d 868. Defendant later instituted an infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia against the Peopl......
-
Fretwell v. PEOPLES SERVICE DRUG STORES, 4731.
...decision finds further support in the case of Fretwell v. Gillette Safety Razor Co., D.C., D.Del. 1934, 6 F.Supp. 818, affirmed in 3 Cir., 1935, 78 F.2d 868, wherein blades (exhibits II-E and II-C), similar to those sold by appellee, were held not to infringe upon appellant's (Blades held n......