Case ID: f2d_99/html/0827-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. SWAN, Circuit Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. v. PARR ELECTRIC CO., Inc.
    No. 358.
    Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Nov. 7, 1938.
    SWAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
    For original opinion, see 98 F.2d 60.
    Stephen H. Philbin, of New York City (Harrison F. Lyman and Edgar H. Kent, both of Boston, Mass., of counsel), for appellant.
    Pennie, Davis, Marvin & Edmonds, of New York City, and Lawrence C. Kings-land and Edmund C. Rogers, both of St. Louis, Mo. (Estill E. Ezell, of St. Louis, Mo., of counsel), for appellee.
    Before MANTON, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

The decree of the district court is modified.

SWAN, Circuit Judge

(dissenting).

In my opinion the decree should be affirmed. I believe that the claim is too indefinite to be valid under the doctrine of General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 58 S.Ct. 899, 82 L.Ed. 1402. I think also that the Carlson fan is an anticipation.