Container Co. v. Carpenter Container Corp., 194 F.2d 1013 (3rd Cir. 1952). · Go Syfert
Search
Container Co. v. Carpenter Container Corp., 194 F.2d 1013 (3rd Cir. 1952). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Gajewski v. Bratcher (nd, 1976-04-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1952 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1952 1989 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Gajewski v. Bratcher
N.D. · 1976 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, Von Wedel v. McGrath, 100 F.Supp. 434 (D.C.N.J.1951), affirmed 194 F.2d 1013 (3rd Cir. 1952).
cited Cited "see" Kathleen K. Wilkin v. Sunbeam Corporation
10th Cir. · 1968 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, Von Wedel v. McGrath, 100 F.Supp. 434 (D.C.N.J. *166 1951), affirmed 194 F.2d 1013 (3rd Cir. 1952).
discussed Cited "see" Annie Mae Brazier v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (2×)
5th Cir. · 1958 · signal: see · confidence high
See Von Wedel v. McGrath, D.C.N.J.1951, 100 F.Supp. 434 , affirmed 3 Cir., 1952, 194 F.2d 1013 .
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Bickford
D. Ariz. · 1952 · signal: see · confidence high
See footnote 1, supra. I cannot believe that the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , granting the court discretion not to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner, must be interpreted to require the court to hear fully such prisoner just as often as he may be able to devise different fact situations upon which to predicate his claim for relief.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
CONTAINER COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CARPENTER CONTAINER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant
10567.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Mar 25, 1952.
194 F.2d 1013
Daniel H. Kane, New York City (Morris, Steel, Nichols & Arsht, Wilmington, Del., Harrison, Spangenberg & Hull, Cleveland, Ohio, Duell & Kane, New York City, on the brief), for appellant., Newton A. Burgess, New York City (Berl, Potter & Anderson, Wilmington, Del., H. H. Hamilton, New York City, Eugene G. Mason, Washington, D. C, John J. Mahoney, Columbus, Ohio, Thomas P. Keogh, Chicago, Ill., on the brief), for appellee.
McLaughlin, Staley, Hastie.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment holding defendant’s patent invalid. Judge Rodney in his excellent opinion in the District Court, 99 F.Supp. 167, found as a fact that the essential elements of appellant’s combinations were all included in the prior art and that those combinations do not demonstrate the degree of novelty necessary to constitute patentable invention over the prior art. Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84, 91, 62 S.Ct. 37, 86 L.Ed. 58; Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 71 S.Ct. 127, 95 L.Ed. 162; Boston Metals Co. v. Air Products, Inc., 4 Cir., 193 F.2d 535. Our own study of the record satisfies us that his findings of fact have substantial foundation in the evidence and are not clearly wrong.

The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.