128 F.2d 618 - Barry v. Chrysler Corp. — 128 F.2d 618

How this case has been cited

8 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Gerald G. Barry, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

¶2Frank Parker Davis and Geo. N. Hibben, both of Chicago, Ill., and Arthur C. Beaumont, of Detroit, Mich.b and Davis, Lindsey, Smith & Shonts and Winston, Strawn & Shaw, all of Chicago, Ill., for appellees.

¶3Before EVANS and KERNER, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Plaintiffs appeal from a judgm'ent dismissing for want of equity their complaint for infringement of Claims 5, 6, 7, and 9 of patent to Barry, number 1,422,167.

¶6 In Barry et al. v. Studebaker Corp., 7 Cir., 113 F.2d 400, this court held the same claims invalid for want of invention.

¶7We have re-examined the record in that cause and carefully studied the one presented here. Plaintiffs relied upon the same claims in each cause; they offered the testimony of the same patent expert, substantially to the same effect in each. The same prior art was presented. So far as validity is in controversy the records are substantially identical.

¶8Plaintiffs assert at great length that both the District Court and this court were wrong in the prior case, and attempt now to relitigate the issue of validity. Careful examination of the patent, in the light of Lefler, 775,831; Johnston and Kraner, 1,-382,089; Olsen, 1,213,241; Parker, 1,294,-825; Smith, 1,347,183; Baker, 1,123,065; Phipps, 735,812 and Custer, 1,150,103 is convincing that we were not in error in our previous decision. We adopt the analysis made by Judge Treanor and agree that no originality or novelty is disclosed in the claims relied upon.

¶9The judgment is affirmed.