From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fisher v. North Branch Products, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Dec 27, 1962
312 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir. 1962)

Opinion

No. 16746.

Argued October 25, 1962.

Decided December 27, 1962. Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied En Banc January 28, 1963. Petition for Rehearing By the Division Denied February 6, 1963.

Mr. Robert G. Mentag, Detroit, Mich., with whom Mr. Albert W. Rinehart, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Albert A. Smith, Saginaw, Mich., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Michigan, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. J. Harold Kilcoyne, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellee.

Before WASHINGTON, BURGER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.


This case is a sequel to North Branch Products, Inc. v. Fisher, 109 U.S.App. D.C. 182, 284 F.2d 611 (1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 827, 81 S.Ct. 713, 5 L.Ed.2d 705 (1961). After our remand, the case came to trial in the District Court, and resulted in a judgment against Fisher, requiring him to assign certain patents to the plaintiff corporation. This appeal followed.

Appellant makes a number of contentions. Inter alia, he urges that the District Court lacked jurisdiction. But this was decided against appellant in our earlier decision, cited above, and will not be reopened now. He also attacks the findings of fact of the District Court as clearly erroneous. They do not appear so to us. Nor do the conclusions of law appear in error. The judgment of the District Court will accordingly be

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Fisher v. North Branch Products, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Dec 27, 1962
312 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir. 1962)
Case details for

Fisher v. North Branch Products, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:W. Reuen FISHER, Appellant, v. NORTH BRANCH PRODUCTS, INC., a Michigan…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Dec 27, 1962

Citations

312 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir. 1962)

Citing Cases

Kennedy v. Wright

In such instances, the fiduciary agent will be compelled to assign the patent. See e.g., Grip Nut Co. v.…