History
  • No items yet
midpage
Binks Manufacturing Company v. The Spee-Flo Manufacturing Corporation
157 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 358
| 5th Cir. | 1968
|
Check Treatment

392 F.2d 585

157 U.S.P.Q. 358

BINKS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
The SPEE-FLO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 24851.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

April 18, 1968.

Tom Arnold, Houston, Tex., Thomas R. Juettner, Chicago, Ill., Arnold, Roylance, Kruger & Durkee, Houston, Tex., for appellant.

Edward C. Hutcheson, Houston, Tex., Harold F. McNenny, Cleveland, Ohio, McNenny, Farrington, Pearne & Gordon, Cleveland, Ohio, Hutcheson, Taliaferro & Hutcheson, Houston, Tex., of counsel, for appellee.

Before COLEMAN and CLAYTON, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON, District judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

The Spee-Flo Manufacturing Company, appellee, charged Binks Manufacturing Company, appellant, with infringement of Spee-Flo patent number 3,000,576. The District Court found the patent valid and infringed. The opinion of the District Court is published at 264 F. Supp. 542 (1967).

2

Although most favorably impressed by the brilliant argument of counsel for appellant, presented both orally and in briefs, we are nevertheless convinced that the District Judge was right. We see no necessity for duplication of or further comment on the opinion below.

3

The judgment, therefore, will be affirmed and the case remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

4

Affirmed and remanded.

Case Details

Case Name: Binks Manufacturing Company v. The Spee-Flo Manufacturing Corporation
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Date Published: Apr 18, 1968
Citation: 157 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 358
Docket Number: 24851_1
Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.