From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fruehauf Trailer Co. v. Myers

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 10, 1950
181 F.2d 1008 (9th Cir. 1950)

Opinion

No. 12253.

March 24, 1950. Rehearing Denied May 10, 1950.

Arthur W. Dickey, Harness, Dickey Pierce, Detroit, Michigan, Charles R. Spackman, Jr., Charles E. Wright, Pendergrass, Spackman Bullivant, Portland, Oregon, for appellant.

Bardi G. Skulason, Ashley Greene, David Sandeberg, Portland, Oregon, for appellee.

Before BONE, Circuit Judge, GOODMAN and MATHES, District Judges.


This is an appeal, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(4), from a judgment again holding United States Letters Patent No. 2,090,874 to Myers, appellee here, valid and infringed. See Myers v. Beall Pipe Tank Corp., D.C.Or. 1940, 36 F. Supp. 752; Page v. Myers, 9 Cir., 1946, 155 F.2d 57.

Appellant conceded at the bar upon oral argument that all claims of the patent in suit are valid, so only the issue as to infringement remains to be considered. On this issue the evidence clearly sustains the holding of the learned trial Judge. See Myers v. Fruehauf Trailer Co., D.C., 90 F. Supp. 265.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

On Petition for Rehearing


Appellant's petition for a rehearing is denied. That portion of the petition which seeks a rehearing in banc is stricken because "without authority in law or in the rules or practice of the court." See Kronberg v. Hale, 9 Cir., 181 F.2d 767, order upon petition for rehearing filed February 27, 1950; 28 U.S.C. § 46(c).


Summaries of

Fruehauf Trailer Co. v. Myers

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 10, 1950
181 F.2d 1008 (9th Cir. 1950)
Case details for

Fruehauf Trailer Co. v. Myers

Case Details

Full title:FRUEHAUF TRAILER CO. v. MYERS

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: May 10, 1950

Citations

181 F.2d 1008 (9th Cir. 1950)

Citing Cases

Western Pac. R.R. Corp. v. Western Pac. R. Co.

The division in the instant case, consisting of one circuit judge and two district judges, has ordered…

Standard Coil Products Co. v. General Electric Co.

Courts, with whom the responsibility for construing patents lies, will and should resolve ambiguities in a…