• View enhanced case on Westlaw
  • KeyCite this case on Westlaw
  • http://laws.findlaw.com/us/314/94.html
    Cases citing this case: Supreme Court
    Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts
    AUTOMATIC DEVICES CORPORATION v. SINKO TOOL & MANUFACTURING, 314 U.S. 94 (1941)

    U.S. Supreme Court

    AUTOMATIC DEVICES CORPORATION v. SINKO TOOL & MANUFACTURING, 314 U.S. 94 (1941)

    314 U.S. 94

    AUTOMATIC DEVICES CORPORATION, Petitioner,
    v.
    SINKO TOOL & MANUFACTURING COMPANY.

    No. 6.

    Supreme Court of the United States
    Argued Oct. 22, 1941

    November 10, 1941

    Messrs. Drury W. Cooper and Thomas J. Byrne, both of New York City, and Henry M. Huxley, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. [314 U.S. 94, 95]   Messrs. Russell Wiles and Bernard A. Schroeder, both of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.

    Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

    This is a companion case to Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84 , 62 S.Ct. 37, 86 L.Ed. --, decided this day. The court below held that claims 2, 3, and 11 of the Mead patent (No. 1, 736,544) were invalid and not infringed. 7 Cir., 112 F.2d 335. We granted the petition for certiorari limited to the question of validity of those claims. For the reasons stated in Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., supra, the judgment is

    Affirmed.

    FindLaw Career Center

      Search for Law Jobs:

        Post a Job  |  View More Jobs
    Ads by FindLaw