Gormley & Jeffery Tire Co. v. United States Agency
| Decision Date | 21 March 1910 |
| Docket Number | 139. |
| Parties | GORMLEY & JEFFERY TIRE CO. v. UNITED STATES AGENCY et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Livingston Gifford, for appellant.
F. R Coudert, for appellees.
Before LACOMBE, COXE, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.
These patents were before the Circuit Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the suit of the present complainant against the Pennsylvania Rubber Company, and the opinions of those courts are reported in 155 F. 982 and 161 F. 337, 88 C.C.A. 308, respectively. The Circuit Court held that the defendants' tire in that suit did not infringe the patents, and its decision was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals.
It is conceded that the tire which was held not to infringe in the Pennsylvania case was practically the same as that of the defendants in this case, and the records in the two cases are not substantially different. So at the outset we find decisions in the Third Circuit directly against the contentions of the complainant. The decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is entitled to the greatest respect in this court, as is also the decision to the same effect of the Circuit Court. The high standing of those courts would give weight to their opinions upon any subject. But, more than that, the importance of securing uniformity in the law as administered in the several circuits in patent causes is so great that a decision of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction should be followed by this court in every case where the questions presented can fairly be regarded as doubtful. Pratt v. Wright (C.C.) 65 F 99; Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Deisler, (C.C.) 46 F 855.
With respect to the first patent in suit, the most we can say is that, had the question been presented to us in the first instance, it is by no means certain that we would have given the patent so narrow a construction as to exclude infringement. There is much ground for contending that the flanges of defendants' structure are the 'hooked edges' of the claims. Still, in the Pennsylvania case Judge Buffington in the Circuit Court considered the claims in connection with the specifications, and held that they covered a specific form of hook connection not embraced in the defendants' device. The Circuit Court of Appeals likewise construed the claims in connection with the specifications and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Novadel-Agene Corporation v. Penn
...from the decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and declaring the patent invalid at this late date. Gormley & Jeffrey Tire Co. v. United States Agency, 2 Cir., 177 F. 691; Cincinnati Butchers' Supply Co. v. Walker Bin Co., 6 Cir., 230 F. 453; Hughes Tool Co. v. United Mach. Co., D.......
-
Hughes Tool Co. v. United Mach. Co.
...of the validity of the patents. Cincinnati Butchers' Supply Co. v. Walker Bin Co., 6 Cir., 230 F. 453, 454; Gormley & Jeffery Tire Co. v. United States Agency, 2 Cir., 177 F. 691. The claims sued upon of these patents are Fletcher No. 1,856,627, which is also an important patent materially ......
-
Johns-Pratt Co. v. Snow
...212 F. 173 JOHNS-PRATT CO. v. SNOW. United States District Court, W.D. New York.November 5, ... Wetmore and Oscar W. Jeffery, both of New York City, for ... complainant ... 276, 109 C.C.A. 618; ... Gormley & Jeffery Tire Co. v. United States Agency, ... ...