Dailey

Dailey v. Lipman, Wolfe & Co.

Good Law
88 F.2d 362·32 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 488·1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3127
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 15, 1937No. 8118California1,748 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Haney, J.

Plaintiff appeals from an adverse decree in a suit for infringement of a patent issued to plaintiff, No. 1,945,422.

The relief asked by plaintiff was that his patent be declared valid and infringed by defendant; that defendant be enjoined from using, manufacturing, or selling devices made in accordance to the invention patented; for an accounting, and other relief unnecessary to relate. The answer denied infringement, and alleged- that plaintiff’s patent was invalid because it was anticipated by prior patents. The cause was referred to a special master. The master found that there was no infringement, and that plaintiff’s patent was anticipated by prior patents. Exceptions filed to the master’s report were overruled, and the report confirmed. The decree, from which this appeal is taken, dismissed the bill of complaint with prejudice and with costs to defendant.

The device for which the patent in suit was issued is called a “Spring wire collar snubber,” and is made from a single piece of spring wire. It is described in the specification as follows:

There are five claims to the invention, all of which are in issue. The device, as claimed in the first three claims has the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.