Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Panduit Corporation v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc.

476 F.2d 1286

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1973-05-22
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. These appeals relate to the alleged infringement of a patent which the trial court had found to be valid and infringed in prior litigation between these par *1287 ties. That judgment was affirmed. 298 F.Supp. 435 (W.D.Mich., 1969), aff’d. 430 F.2d 221 (6th Cir. 1970), cert. denied 401 U.S. 939, 91 S.Ct. 932, 28 L.Ed. 2d 218 (1971). The proceedings resulting in these appeals involved the appellee’s challenge to certain modifications of the appellant’s device made in an effort to avoid the claims of the patent previously found to be valid. The trial court concluded that there was infringement of the patent by the modified device and found the appellant in contempt of court.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Panduit Corporation v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
6 opinions
PANDUIT CORP. v. STAHLIN BROS. FIBRE WORKS,476 F.2d 1286(6th Cir. 1973)
PANDUIT CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. STAHLIN BROS. FIBRE WORKS, INC.,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Nos. 72-1479, 72-2032.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued April 12, 1973.
Decided May 22, 1973.
John D. Simpson, A. James Valliere, Hill, Sherman, Meroni, Gross Simpson, Chicago, Ill., Richard L. Spindle, W.K. Van't Hof, Schmidt, Heaney, Howlett Van't Hof, and Schmidt, Smith Howlett, Grand Rapids, Mich., for defendant-appellant.

Roy E. Petherbridge, John M. O'Neill, Petherbridge, O'Neill Lindgren, Chicago, Ill., Randall G. Litton, Price, Heneveld, Huizenga Cooper, Grand Rapids, Mich., for plaintiff-appellant.
On appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division; Noel P. Fox, Chief Judge.
Before PECK, McCREE and KENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
[1] These appeals relate to the alleged infringement of a patent which the trial court had found to be valid and infringed in prior litigation between these parties.Page 1287That judgment was affirmed.298 F. Supp. 435(W.D.Mich., 1969), aff'd.430 F.2d 221(6th Cir. 1970), cert. denied401 U.S. 939,91 S.Ct. 932,28 L.Ed.2d 218(1971).

[2] The proceedings resulting in these appeals involved the appellee's challenge to certain modifications of the appellant's device made in an effort to avoid the claims of the patent previously found to be valid. The trial court concluded that there was infringement of the patent by the modified device and found the appellant in contempt of court. We conclude that the District Judge's findings were free from error.

[3] Appellant now claims that it was prevented from introducing evidence of prior art and further claims that the trial court did not consider the pertinent prior art. A careful examination of the transcript of the trial convinces us that these claims are completely without merit.

[4] For the reasons herein stated and for the reasons stated in the opinion of District Judge Noel P. Fox,338 F. Supp. 1240(1972), the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.Page 27