Ethicon, Inc., Appellant, v. Handgards, Inc., et al., Appellees, 432 F.2d 438 (9th Cir. 1971)
Annotate this CaseRehearing 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 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.
The decree is affirmed because the findings are not clearly erroneous.
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.
