Case Name: James DENARO, Appellant, v. MARYLAND BAKING COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1931-06-17
Citations: 50 F.2d 1074
Docket Number: No. 3151
Parties: James DENARO, Appellant, v. MARYLAND BAKING COMPANY, a Corporation, Ap-pellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 50
Pages: 1074–1075

Head Matter:
James DENARO, Appellant, v. MARYLAND BAKING COMPANY, a Corporation, Ap-pellee.
No. 3151.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
June 17, 1931.
Jesse A. Holton, of Boston, Mass. (John E. Cross, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellant.
Albert E. Dieterich, of Washington, D. C. (Bowie & Burke, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges, and ERNEST F. COCHRAN, District Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The main contention of appellant on this appeal is that the court below in its opinion (Denaro v. Maryland Baking Co., 40 F.(2d) 513) erroneously applied the principles laid down in the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co., 270 U. S. 390, 46 S. Ct. 324, 70 L. Ed. 651. A careful consideration of the briefs and argument before us, and a study of the record, lead us to the conclusion that the judge below not only properly applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the Milbum Case, but also reached the correct conclusion on the merits. The judge below had the advantage of seeing machines used by the appellee in actual operation, and his conclusion should be given all the more weight because of that fact.
The questions raised by the counterclaim of defendant are not before us, as defendant did not appeal; but, so far as tbe opinion of the judge below relates to the patents relied on by complainant and the alleged infringement thereof, same is adopted as the opinion of this court, and the decree below will accordingly be affirmed.