Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

34 F.2d 1020

Docket No. 4016.

Johnson v. Duquesne Light Co.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided September 19, 1929.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1929-09-19

2 counsel of record

Relies on Johnson v. Duquesne Light Co.

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1929-09-19

¶1For opinion below, see 29 F. (2d) 784.

¶2Philip E. Siggers and Alva D. Adams, both of Washington, D. C. (Marshall A. Christy and Christy, Christy & Wharton, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Siggers & Adams, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant.

¶3Reed, Smith, Shaw & MeClay and Byrnes, Stebbins & Parmelee, all of Pittsburgh, Pa. (Geo. E. Stebbins, Lester G. Budlong and C. P. Byrnes, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel), for appellee.

¶4Before WOOLLEY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and RELLSTAB, District Judge.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6This suit was brought for the infringement of United States letters patent No. 1,366,078, issued to Tomlinson Fort Johnson, Jr., January 18, 1921,,for a "new and useful method of locating faulty Buspension-insulators on live-wire transmission-lines.” The defenses are invalidity and noninfringement of the patent. Claims 6 and; 8 to 31, inclusive, are in issue. The learned District Judge dismissed the bill on the grounds that: (1) The patent does not set forth a patentable invention; (2) it was anticipated; and (3) the defendant does notinfringe.

¶7The decree is affirmed, on the opinion of the District Court.

/34/f2d/1020 · .json · Public domain