Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

63 F. 840

Docket No. 17.

Maitland v. Gibson

Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided October 22, 1894.)

Third Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1894-10-22

<p>1. Patents—Combination—Electric Light Fixtures.</p> <p>In view of the prior state of the art, there is no invention in a combination comprising an electric light fixture supported from the piping of a house, and electrically insulated therefrom by an insulating joint. 63 Fed. 120, affirmed.</p> <p>2. Same.</p> <p>The Stieringer patent, No. 259,233, for an “electrical fixture,” held to be without patentable combination, as respects claims 1, 7, 8, and 9. 63 Fed. 126, affirmed.</p> <p>3. Same—Mechanical Union of Parts.</p> <p>The Stieringer patent, No. 294,697, for a combined gas and electric light fixture, held void as to claims 1, 2, 8, and 9, as showing a mere mechanical union of parts, without patentable combination. 63 Fed. 126, affirmed.</p>

2 counsel of record

Relies on Maitland v. Gibson · United States v. Kodiak · Thomson Electric Welding Co. v. Two Rivers Manuf'g Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

On final hearing the bill was dismissed, with costs · Opinion by Marcus Wilson Acheson · Decided 1894-10-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 1935

5 federal appellate ·

7018941900191019201930decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶11. Patents—Combination—Electric Light Fixtures.

¶2In view of the prior state of the art, there is no invention in a combination comprising an electric light fixture supported from the piping of a house, and electrically insulated therefrom by an insulating joint. 63 Fed. 120, affirmed.

¶32. Same.

¶4The Stieringer patent, No. 259,233, for an “electrical fixture,” held to be without patentable combination, as respects claims 1, 7, 8, and 9. 63 Fed. 126, affirmed.

¶53. Same—Mechanical Union of Parts.

¶6The Stieringer patent, No. 294,697, for a combined gas and electric light fixture, held void as to claims 1, 2, 8, and 9, as showing a mere mechanical union of parts, without patentable combination. 63 Fed. 126, affirmed.

¶7Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

¶8This was a bill in equity by George Maitland against Alfred C. Gibson for infringement of certain patents for electric light fixtures.

¶9On final hearing the bill was dismissed, with costs. (53 Fed. 126. Complainant appeals.

¶10Bichard ZEST. Dyer, for appellant.

¶11Hector T. Fenton, for appellee.

¶12*841Before ACHESON, Circuit Judge, and BUTLER and WALES, District Judges.

¶13ACHESON, Circuit Judge.

¶14After a thorough examination of this record, we fail to discover any ground for disturbing the decree dismissing the bill of complaint. We all concur in the conclusions of the circuit court, and in the reasons therefor expressed in its opinion. That opinion is so full and satisfactory that any further discussion of the case is needless. We therefore adopt the opinion of the court below as our own, and upon it we affirm the decree. Decree affirmed.

/63/f1d/840 · .json · Public domain