Court Opinion

ID: 9448317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:31:16.84348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:22.660570
License: Public Domain

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
The opinions filed since the en banc hearing in this case are in agreement on at least one thing, and that is that there have been conflicting interpretations placed by members of the patent bar on our opinions in Spitfire and England
*55So far as the appeal in No. 13268 is concerned, I concur with both the opinion of Judge Duify and that of Judge Castle that the order denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be affirmed. Such a disposition of the matter in this court might well afford an opportunity for the Supreme Court to assume jurisdiction of this case because of the unusual and disturbing circumstances existing at the patent bar and growing out of the differences in interpretation so clearly reflected in the accompanying opinions. Certainly, as a matter of general policy, the Supreme Court cannot be expected to accept cases involving questions of validity or infringement of patents which are of interest only to the litigants. That court may see in this case a pressing need for solution of a question of general interest in the field of patent law.