Davis

(concurring).

I concur, and repeat the comment in my concurring opinion in Motoshaver, Incorporated v. Schick Dry Shaver, Incor~ porated, et al., 9 Cir., 112 F.2d 701 , this day decided.

This is an appeal under § 129 of the Judicial Code, as amended, 28 U.S.C.A. § 227a,' from a decree rendered in a suit in equity for the infringement of letters patent, the decree being final except for the ordering of an accounting.

The suit was brought by appellees, Schick Dry Shaver, Incorporated, Schick Industries, Limited, and Edises, Incorporated, against Nicholl, Incorporated (hereafter called Nicholl). While the suit was pending in the District Court, Nicholl was adjudged a bankrupt, and appellant Robert J. Davis, Nicholl’s ■ trustee in bankruptcy, was substituted as defendant. The patents involved are Nos. 1,721,530 and 1,757,978, issued to Jacob Schick on July 23, 1929,, and May 13, 1930, respectively. The patents were assigned to and are now owned by Schick Industries, Limited, of which Schick Dry Shaver, Incorporated, is, in the United States, the sole licensee. Edises, Incorporated, is a sublicensee of Schick Dry Shaver, Incorporated. Nicholl was' alleged to have infringed these patents by manufacturing, using and selling devices called Nicholl Velvet Shavers. Defenses were that the patents were invalid, and that, if valid, they were not infringed.

Nicholl was…

(dissenting)

For reasons given in my dissent in Mota-shaver, Inc. v. Schick Dry Shaver, Inc., et al., 9 Cir., 112 F.2d 701 , this day decided, I think the decree below should be affirmed.