PER CURIAM.
Appellant's mechanical patent, No. 2,748,748, and two design patents, Nos. 171,093 and 176,469, were held to be invalid by the district court, primarily because they are all covered by prior art. The record affords sound basis for these conclusions.
The trial judge did not, as asserted by appellant, ignore the presumption of validity attaching to appellant's patents. He did consider, and properly, the fact that a wealth of relevant prior art had...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
