Case ID: f_187/html/0941-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

L. H. GILMER CO. v. GEISEL.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    May 25, 1911.)
    No. 34.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
    Bill by the L. H. Gilmer Company against Otto Geisel. Bill dis7 missed (187 Fed. 606), and complainant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Richard W. Barrett and Thos. Raeburn White, for appellant.
    Frank J. Knaus, for appellee.
    Before BUFFINGTON and TANNING, Circuit Judges, and YOUNG, District Judge.
   BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In the court below, the T- H. Gilmer Company, the owner of patent No. 723,379, granted March 24, 1903, to T. H. Gilmer, for an improvement in 'belting, 'filed a bill against Otto Geisel, charging him with infringing the seventh claim thereof. That, court found Geisel did not infringe, and from a decree dismissing the bill the Gilmer Company appealed to this court

The subject-matter of the case is so fully and satisfactorily stated by the court below in its opinion that a further opinion by this court could be but a repetition. We content ourselves with stating that in our judgment the decree of dismissal entered by the court below might well have been justified on the ground of claim 7 being invalid, as not predicated on any disclosure of the subject-matter thereof in the spec? ification. Hestonville, etc., Ry. Co. v. McDuffee, 185 Fed. 798; Railway Co. v. Sayles, 97 U. S. 554, 24 L. Ed. 1053; Eagleton Mfg. Co. v. West, 111 U. S. 490, 4 Sup. Ct. 593, 28 L. Ed. 493. We deem-it proper to add that Geisel claims to be operating under patent to him, No. 726,670. Upon the question of the validity of that patent, or its scope, we express no opinion.

The decree of the court below dismissing this bill, is affirmed.