Container Company, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Carpenter Container Corporation, Defendant-appellant, 194 F.2d 1013 (3d Cir. 1952)
Annotate this CaseDecided March 25, 1952
Appeal from a Final Judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware; Richard Seymour Rodney, Judge.
Daniel H. Kane, New York City (Morris, Steel, Nichols & Arsht, Wilmington, Del., Harrison, Spangenberg & Hull, Cleveland, Ohio, Duell & Kane, New York City, on the brief), for appellant.
Newton A. Burgess, New York City (Berl, Potter & Anderson, Wilmington, Del., H. H. Hamilton, New York City, Eugene G. Mason, Washington, D. C., John J. Mahoney, Columbus, Ohio, Thomas P. Keogh, Chicago, Ill., on the brief), for appellee.
Before McLAUGHLIN, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment holding defendant's patent invalid. Judge Rodney in his excellent opinion in the District Court, 99 F. Supp. 167, found as a fact that the essential elements of appellant's combinations were all included in the prior art and that those combinations do not demonstrate the degree of novelty necessary to constitute patentable invention over the prior art. Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84, 91, 62 S. Ct. 37, 86 L. Ed. 58; Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 71 S. Ct. 127, 95 L. Ed. 162; Boston Metals Co. v. Air Products, Inc., 4 Cir., 193 F.2d 535. Our own study of the record satisfies us that his findings of fact have substantial foundation in the evidence and are not clearly wrong.
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
