Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
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

AUTOKRAFT BOX CORPORATION v. STONE et al.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff-appellant has appealed from that part of the decree of the District Court holding claims 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of its patent No. 1,646,563 invalid. Claims 20 and 39 of the patent were held valid and infringed and an accounting was ordered. The defendants-appellees did not appeal.

The patent here involved "relates to apparatus and methods for wrapping boxes". Claims 20 and 39 are for an apparatus. All the other claims are for a method.

The question involved in this case is whether or not the method of wrapping a cigar box described in the patent was old in the art and anticipated.

The opinion of the learned District Judge filed October 28, 1936 (Autokraft Box Corporation v. Nu-Box Corporation, D.C., 16 F. Supp. 794) thoroughly discusses the question and we think his discussion is entirely adequate. Accordingly, we affirm the decree on his opinion.

The decree is affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

AUTOKRAFT BOX CORPORATION v. STONE
(Aug 8, 1938)