Task: songer_weightev

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in any civil law cases including civil government, civil private, and diversity cases. The issue is: "Did the factual interpretation by the court or its conclusions (e.g., regarding the weight of evidence or the sufficiency of evidence) favor the appellant?" This includes discussions of whether the litigant met the burden of proof. Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

SPARKS, Circuit Judge.
This action in equity was instituted by appellants on October 4, 1929. They alleged that they were all residents of Illinois, and were the equitable owners of United States Patent to Robinson, No. 886,-541. The patent issued on May 5, 1908. It expired in May, 1925, and Robinson died in December, 1925. Plaintiffs aver that they represent a class of 2,000 other joint equitable owners. They charge the American Car and Foundry Company with infringement of the patent, and demand an accounting for profits and damages resulting therefrom. The bill makes many others parties defendant, including the widow, as administratrix, of the patentee, and alleges that the defendants, aside from the Company, are claiming an unfounded title or interest adverse to that of plaintiffs, and they ask that plaintiffs' title be declared valid and that they be awarded damages for infringement.
The defendants, other than the Company, "answered, alleging valid adverse interests, and admitting their residence' to be in Illinois. However, they agree with plaintiffs that the Company has infringed the patent, and .they all urge that the question of infringement be first adjudicated, and that the many conflicting interests of alleged title owners be subsequently determined.
On motion of the American Car and Foundry Company, the court dismissed, the bill of complaint for want of jurisdiction, holding that plaintiffs lacked title to the patent, and were without power or capacity to maintain a suit for infringement. From this decree this appeal is prosecuted.
It is clear that if the court’s ruling was sound with respect to the question of who may bring suit for infringement, the issue with respect to the adverse title between plaintiffs and the claiming defendants could not proceed because there was a lack of diverse citizenship of the parties.
The questions here presented were before us in Kulesza v. Blair, 7 Cir., 70 F.2d 505, where the nature of appellants’ alleged title is fully set forth, and we decided them adversely to appellants’ contentions here. True, some evidence was taken in that case, but the allegations here are the equivalent of the facts presented there, and they constitute no basis for establishing title sufficient to maintain the suit within the purview of Sections 4919 and 4898 of the Revised Statutes, 35 U.S.C.A. §§ 67, 47.
The decree here is affirmed on the authority of the Kulesza case, supra.

Question: Did the factual interpretation by the court or its conclusions (e.g., regarding the weight of evidence or the sufficiency of evidence) favor the appellant?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D