Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
BETTER PACKAGES, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. LINK & CO., Inc., Louis Link and Charles F. Albers, Defendants-Appellants, 1935 — 75 F.2d 1006 · caselaw · US
IP
BETTER PACKAGES, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. LINK & CO., Inc., Louis Link and Charles F. Albers, Defendants-Appellants
75 F.2d 1006·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1935
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
BETTER PACKAGES, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. LINK & CO., Inc., Louis Link and Charles F. Albers, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 180.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 21, 1935.
For former opinion, see 74 F.(2d) 679.
Hammond & Littell, of New York City (Edmund Quincy Moses, Nelson Littell, and Clarence M. Crews, all of New York City, of counsel), for'plaintiff-appellant.
Warfield & Brown, of New York City (Donald L. Brown and Griffith Beems, both S -kTa v- , r t. £ . * . of. New York City, of counsel), for defend-smts-onnMIflTH-Q '
Before L. HAND, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Upon the plaintiff’s petition for reargument as to reissue patent No. 18,322, we have again carefully considered the question of validity, and wé adhere to our former conclusion. Even if Elliott alone is not enough to anticipate claim _1, we cannot hold that invention was involved in making the adjustments necessary for the patent m suit out of parts shown in Brownson, Pitney, Elliott, and Kreuger’s first patent. The defendants’ new ground of attack, based on failure to disclaim after Judge Hickenlooper’s decision holding invalid certain claims of the parent patent, No. 1,638,815, has not been considered, as it is not presented by this record,