Court Opinion

ID: 9450816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:58:25.431582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:27.793172
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
Appellants, in petition for rehearing, ask us (1) to delete from footnote No. 1 the following language:
“and have shown no desire (indeed, they have disclaimed it) to secure an adjudication of the validity of the patent as so limited.”
(a) to modify our decision to hold the claims of the LaTorre patent limited to the details recited in that footnote, and (3) to rule that as so limited the patent is valid. Appellants assert that it was never their intention to disclaim their right to an adjudication of the validity of the patent as narrowly construed. They note that this action would accomplish no new result so far as this case is concerned, since it is conceded that with the claims so limited appellee is not in infringement.
Feeling that we may have read too much into what we regarded as a disclaimer, it is ordered that the quoted language be stricken from footnote 1.
Although we feel impatience with counsel for imposing upon us what appears to be a last-minute change of tactics, still, in our judgment, the interests of justice justify the following clarification of our judgment and limitation upon its scope.
The question of validity which was at issue related to the patent as read with the broad construction contend:ed for by appellants. We do not rule upon the precise scope of the patent nor upon its validity when less broadly construed since these issues were not subjected to the test of adversary proceedings.
 Therefore, we do not by our decision hold the patent invalid. We hold that for the reasons set forth in our earlier opinion it may not be given the1 broad construction for which appellants, have contended, since with such construction it luould be invalid. Since it is conceded that as otherwise construed there is no infringement, the question of validity is not reached.