Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Ethicon, Inc. v. Handgards, Inc.

432 F.2d 438

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1971-01-05
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: Ethicon’s Gerard patent No. 3,028,576 was held invalid because the trial court found that under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) there was prior public use for more than one year of the concept of the machine, the subject of the patent. There is little or no direct contradiction in the oral evidence. In our view, we have a case that could have been decided either way. Ethicon contends the testimony of Handgards’ principal was too weak and impaired by certain circumstances. But the trial court was entitled to give more weight to other circumstances which point to Handgards’ version being correct.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Ethicon, Inc. v. Handgards, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
3 opinions
ETHICON, INC. v. HANDGARDS, INC.,432 F.2d 438(9th Cir. 1970)
ETHICON, INC., Appellant, v. HANDGARDS, INC., et al., Appellees.
No. 22985.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
August 26, 1970.
Rehearing Denied January 5, 1971.
Sidney Neuman (argued), Charles A. Laff, James R. Dowdall, Chicago, Ill., Carl Hoppe, San Francisco, Cal., Arnold S. Worfolk, New Brunswick, N.J., for appellant.

A. Donham Owen (argued), and Roger W. Erickson, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS and MERRILL, Circuit Judges, and POWELL, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Ethicon's Gerard patent No. 3,028,576 was held invalid because the trial court found that under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) there was prior public use for more than one year of the concept of the machine, the subject of the patent.

There is little or no direct contradiction in the oral evidence. In our view, we have a case that could have been decided either way. Ethicon contends the testimony of Handgards' principal was too weak and impaired by certain circumstances. But the trial court was entitled to give more weight to other circumstances which point to Handgards' version being correct.

The decree is affirmed because the findings are not clearly erroneous.