Case Name: THOMSON ELECTRIC WELDING CO. et al. v. BARNEY & BERRY, Inc.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1916-06-14
Citations: 236 F. 1022
Docket Number: No. 1115
Parties: THOMSON ELECTRIC WELDING CO. et al. v. BARNEY & BERRY, Inc.
Judges: Before PUTNAM and BINGHAM, Circuit Judges, and ALDRICH, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 236
Pages: 1022–1023

Head Matter:
THOMSON ELECTRIC WELDING CO. et al. v. BARNEY & BERRY, Inc.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
June 14, 1916.)
No. 1115.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. Application for leave to apply to District Court for leave to amend answer.
Before PUTNAM and BINGHAM, Circuit Judges, and ALDRICH, District Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We have carefully examined the Bouehayer French patent, No. 330,200, relied upon by the defendants, in their application for^leave to apply to the District Court to amend their answer, as an anticipation of the patent in suit, No. 1,046,066, issued to Harmatta, and are of the opinion that it is not material upon the question, or at the least, that it does not present such clear and convincing proof as is calculated to bring about a different result from that reached in our opinion handed down in this case on the 5th day of October, 1915 (227 Fed. 428, 142 C. C. A. 124). It seems rather to present a device, the essential features, mode of operation, and the result of which are entirely different from those disclosed in the Harmatta patent. Application denied.