AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

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

PER CURIAM:

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).

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.

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

Affirmed and remanded.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BINKS MANUFACTURING CO. v. SPEE-FLO MFG. CORP
(Apr 18, 1968)