Case Name: Petition of TUBULAR WOVEN FABRIC CO. NATIONAL METAL MOLDING CO. v. TUBULAR WOVEN FABRIC CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1919-12-16
Citations: 261 F. 924
Docket Number: No. 1421
Parties: Petition of TUBULAR WOVEN FABRIC CO. NATIONAL METAL MOLDING CO. v. TUBULAR WOVEN FABRIC CO.
Judges: Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 261
Pages: 924–924

Head Matter:
Petition of TUBULAR WOVEN FABRIC CO. NATIONAL METAL MOLDING CO. v. TUBULAR WOVEN FABRIC CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
December 16, 1919.)
No. 1421.
Patents <&=»328 — Fob flexible electbic conduit valid.
The validity of tbe Osburn patent, No. 652,806, for a flexible electric conduit, is reaffirmed.
<®=s>For otter cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Petition for Leave to Apply to the District Court of the United States for Permission to File a Supplemental Bill in the Nature of a Bill of Review.
Suit by the National Metal Molding Company against the Tubular Woven Fabric Company. A decree for defendant was reversed (227 Fed. 884, 142 C. C. A. 408), and the defendant files an original petition for leave to apply to the District Court, for permission to file a supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review.
Petition denied.
Livingston Gifford, of New York City, and William Quinby, of Boston, Mass., for petitioner.
Charles F. Perkins and W. M. Richardson, both of Boston, Mass., for respondent.
Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner (defendant below) now seeks to have this court reverse its decision as to the Osburn patent, held valid by this court, Putnam, Dodge and Bingham, JJ. (opinion by Bingham, J.), in 227 Fed. 884, 142 C. C. A. 408, decided on November 20, 1915. A petition for rehearing was deniéd by this court. The defendant's application to the Supreme Court for certiorari was denied by that court. 241 U. S. 663, 36 Sup. Ct. 450, 60 L. Ed. 1227. This patent was, by necessary implication, again sustained by this court, Dodge, Bingham and Aldrich, JJ. (opinion by Aldrich, J.), in 254 Fed. 304, 166 C. C. A. 44. The court, as now constituted, remains content with those decisions and opinions.
We cannot adopt the view of petitioner's counsel as to the meaning, and application to the issue in this case, of the decision and opinion of the Supreme Court in Werk v. Parker, 249 U. S. 130, 39 Sup. Ct. 197, 63 L. Ed. 514. We see nothing in that case which would have led this court to any different conclusion as to the validity of the Osburn patent, or which would now warrant this court in reconsidering a decision made four years ago.
Petition denied.