Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

129 F. 918

Docket No. 515.

Tower v. Hobbs

First Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided May 5, 1904.)

First Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1904-05-05

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.</p>

1 counsel of record

Relies on Tower v. Eagle Pencil Co.

Opinion by Francis Cabot Lowell · Decided 1904-05-05

¶11. Patents — Infringement—Penholders.

¶2The Tower patent, No. 378,223, for a penholder having a sleeve of cork at its lower end, held not infringed.

¶3Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.

¶4Anson M. Lyman (Walter S. Logan, on the brief), for appellant. Marcellus Bailey (Aaron H. Latham, on the brief), for appellee.

¶5Before PUTNAM, Circuit Judge, and BROWN and LOWELL, District Judges.

¶6LOWELL, District Judge.

¶7The question here raised was decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Tower v. Eagle Pencil Co., 94 Fed. 361, 36 C. C. A. 294. Upon consideration we find no reason to differ from that court in its conclusion that a pen precisely like the defendant’s, here in evidence, did not infringe the patent in suit. Concerning the validity of that patent we express no opinion.

¶8The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed, and the appellee recovers his costs of appeal.

/129/f1d/918 · .json · Public domain