Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Horace B. Brose, Plaintiff-appellant-cross Appellee, v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., et al., Defendants-appellees-cross-appellants
United States Court of Appeals, - 455 F.2d 769
Carl V. Wisner, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, Fla., John Cyril Malloy, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant-cross-appellee.
G. Franklin Rothwell, Washington, D. C., Peter J. Winders, Tampa, Fla., for defendants-appellees-cross-appellants.
Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
The mandate of this court issued on the 12th day of January, 1972, in the within matter is recalled. The opinion of this court dated December 21, 1971, is withdrawn. The following opinion is issued in lieu thereof.
Let the mandate issue forthwith.
PER CURIAM:
In this action for patent infringement, the district court held that the patent was valid but that it had not been infringed by Sears, Roebuck and Company. The patentee, Brose, appeals the finding of non-infringement, and Sears cross-appeals from the court's holding that the patent is valid.
On the question of infringement we find substantial evidence to support the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. We affirm the district court's holding that Sears did not infringe the Brose patent.
Having so held and on the facts of this case, we find it unnecessary to review the trial court's determination that the patent is valid. Harries v. Air King Products Co., 2 Cir. 1950, 183 F.2d 158; Marvin Glass & Assn. v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 5 Cir. 1971, 448 F.2d 66 [1971]; Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. Chemtronics, Inc., 5 Cir. 1970, 428 F.2d 555.
Affirmed.