Automatic Devices Corp. v. Sinko Tool & Mfg. Co., 314 U.S. 94 (1941)

U.S. Supreme Court

Automatic Devices Corp. v. Sinko Tool & Manufacturing Co.

No. 6

Argued October 22, 1941

Decided November 10, 1941

314 U.S. 94

Syllabus

Decided on the authority of Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., ante, p. 314 U. S. 84.

112 F.2d 335 affirmed.

Certiorari, 312 U.S. 711, limited to the question whether claims 2, 3, and 11 of the Mead patent No. 1,736,544 are valid. In a suit for infringement, a judgment of the District Court holding the claims valid and infringed was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, which held them invalid and not infringed.

Page 314 U. S. 95

U.S. Supreme Court

Automatic Devices Corp. v. Sinko Tool & Manufacturing Co.

No. 6

Argued October 22, 1941

Decided November 10, 1941

314 U.S. 94

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Decided on the authority of Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., ante, p. 314 U. S. 84.

112 F.2d 335 affirmed.

Certiorari, 312 U.S. 711, limited to the question whether claims 2, 3, and 11 of the Mead patent No. 1,736,544 are valid. In a suit for infringement, a judgment of the District Court holding the claims valid and infringed was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, which held them invalid and not infringed.

Page 314 U. S. 95

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a companion case to Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., ante, p. 314 U. S. 84. The court below held that claims 2, 3, and 11 of the Mead patent (No. 1,736,544) were invalid and not infringed. 112 F.2d 335. We granted the petition for certiorari limited to the question of validity of those claims. For the reasons stated in Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., supra, the judgment is

Affirmed.