Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Aircraftsmen, Inc. v. Aircraft Equipment Company

383 F.2d 988

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1967-11-06
Topic: general

PER CURIAM: This appeal by the plaintiff below is from a judgment holding United States Letters Patent 2,828,166 invalid and not to have been infringed by defendant-appellee. All issues of law and fact were exhaustively considered and decided by the District Court in a published opinion, 247 F.Supp. 469 (1965). Upon thorough consideration of the appeal, including *989 briefs and fine arguments here, we are left in no doubt that the case was correctly decided. This being so, no worthwhile service is to be accomplished by any paraphrasing of an opinion already published. The judgment of the District Court, therefore, is Affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Aircraftsmen, Inc. v. Aircraft Equipment Company. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status: pending
Cited by: 3 opinions

AIRCRAFTSMEN, INC. v. AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT CO.,383 F.2d 988(5th Cir. 1967)

AIRCRAFTSMEN, INC., Appellant, v. AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 23535.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

November 6, 1967.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida; William O. Mehrtens, Judge.

William E. Schuyler, Jr., Washington, D.C., Richard A. Pallot, Miami, Fla., (Pallot, Silver, Pallot Stern, Miami, Fla., Browne, Schuyler Beveridge, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for appellant.

James E. Cockfield, Washington, D.C., Thomas H. Anderson, Miami, Fla., (James P. Burns, Burns, Doane, Benedict, Swecker Mathis, Washington, D.C., Shutts Bowen, Miami, Fla., on the brief), for appellee.

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and COLEMAN and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal by the plaintiff below is from a judgment holding United States Letters Patent 2,828,166 invalid and not to have been infringed by defendant-appellee. All issues of law and fact were exhaustively considered and decided by the District Court in a published opinion,247 F. Supp. 469(1965). Upon thorough consideration of the appeal, includingPage 989briefs and fine arguments here, we are left in no doubt that the case was correctly decided. This being so, no worthwhile service is to be accomplished by any paraphrasing of an opinion already published.

The judgment of the District Court, therefore, is

Affirmed.