Case Name: HYGIENIC FLEECED UNDERWEAR CO. v. PHŒNIX KNITTING WORKS et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1912-03-27
Citations: 195 F. 763
Docket Number: No. 1,575
Parties: HYGIENIC FLEECED UNDERWEAR CO. v. PHŒNIX KNITTING WORKS et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 195
Pages: 763–763

Head Matter:
HYGIENIC FLEECED UNDERWEAR CO. v. PHŒNIX KNITTING WORKS et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
March 27, 1912.)
No. 1,575.
Patents (§ 328 )—Validity and Inekincjement—Muffles. The Mead patent, No. 963,285, for a muffler, held valid and infringed.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Suit in equity by the Phoenix Knitting Works and the Bradley Knitting Company against the Hygienic Fleeced Underwear Company. Decree for complainants, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
For opinion below, see 194 Fed. 717.
Hector T. Fenton, for appellant.
Fraley & Paul, for appellees.
Before GRAY and BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judges, and YOUNG, District Judge.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Doe. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
In the court below complainants, the owners by assignment of patent No. 963,235, granted July 5, 1910, to Mead, for a muffler, charged respondent with infringement of the first claim thereof. That court found the claim valid, and held the respondent infringed. From a decree so holding the present appeal was taken.
The opinion of the court below so well expresses the views we too have reached that an opinion by this court could but be substantially a restatement. We therefore content ourselves with reciting our conclusions, which are, first, that the insertion of a V-shaped collar in a neck muffler was the gist of Mead's device, was original with him, the making dating back to April, 1907, and the sale thereof to November, 1907; secondly, the device involved patentable originality; thirdly, the disclosure of a V-shaped collar in Mead's original specification warranted the patent authorities in suggesting and awarding to him, after proper amendment, the claim in question, which he had successfully antedated as against numerous applicants in interference.
The decree below is affirmed.