IP
HILLS v. HAMILTON WATCH CO.
252 F. 991·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1918
Before BUFFINGTON, McPHERSON, and WOOL-LEY, Circuit Judges.
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
HILLS v. HAMILTON WATCH CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
May 25, 1918.)
No. 2353.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Oliver B. Dickinson, Judge. Suit by Edward R. Hills against the Hamilton Watch Company. From a decree dismissing the bill (248 Fed. 499), plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Cyrus N. Anderson, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Max W. Zabel, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Charles J. Williamson, of Washington, D. C., and William Steell Jackson, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Charles L. Miller, of Lancaster, Pa., of counsel), for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, McPHERSON, and WOOL-LEY, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
We do not think it necessary to discuss again the questions that the District Court has already considered at length. 248 Fed. 499. The patent has expired, and nothing is now involved, except the right to an .account. Accordingly we express no opinion concerning laches or validity; it is enough to say that we do not find infringement. On this point we regard the prior art aS limiting the patent so narrowly that the defendant is free to use the two barrels that have been attacked.
The decree is affirmed.