Case Name: HURIN v. ELEC. VACUUM CLEANER CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1924-04-09
Citations: 2 Ohio Law Abs. 740
Docket Number: No. 3970
Parties: HURIN v. ELEC. VACUUM CLEANER CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 2
Pages: 740–740

Head Matter:
No. 772
HURIN v. ELEC. VACUUM CLEANER CO.
U. S. Appeals, 6th Circuit
No. 3970.
Decided April 9, 1924
897. PATENTS — Where the only difference between expert witnesses was not as to any technical meaning, but as to the proper interpretation of the patent, the question is for the court and not for the jury---------------
Attorneys — Harold E. Smith and Wm. L. Day, for Hurin; Charles Neave, for Gleaner Co.; all of Cleveland.

Opinion:
MACK, C. J.
Epitomized Opinion
Action at law for infringement of a patent relating to pneumatic carpet sweeper. At the close of the testimony, the court directed a verdict for the' defendant on the ground that there was no issue of fact for the jury to decide. The plaintiff alleges error in not leaving- the question of infringement to the jury. The Circuit Court affirmed the judgment.
1. The question of infringement on. the record involved no issue of fact for the jury.
• 2. Where there is no substantial dispute as to technical terms or meaning affaeting the interpretation of claims and no substantial dispute as to funcetions or component elements of the alleged infringing device, it is a question for the court and not for the jury.