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.
IP
MONARCH COMPANY, Inc., and Therm-A-Jug Company, Inc., Appellants, v. MANTLE LAMP COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellee
22 F.2d 95·United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit·1927
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
MONARCH COMPANY, Inc., and Therm-A-Jug Company, Inc., Appellants, v. MANTLE LAMP COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellee.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
May 28, 1927.
Rehearing Denied December 5, 1927.
No. 3889.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Wallace R. Lane, of Chicago, Ill., for appellants.
Charles Neave, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before ALSCHULER, EVAN A. EVANS, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.]
ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.
Appellants filed suit against appellee for unfair competition in the sale of heat-insulated receptacles designed to keep hot liquids hot and eold liquids cold. Appellee filed a counterclaim charging that plaintiffs, in making their receptacles, infringed patent No. 1,-435,199, owned by appellee and considered in the ease of Macomb Manufacturing Co. v. Mantle Lamp Co. (No. 3812) 22 F.(2d) 93, decided this day.
The court dismissed the bill of complaint for want of equity, upheld the counterclaim, and adjudged the patent valid and infringed as to the same claims relied on in No. 3812. The only question presented upon the issue of unfair competition is whether the decree was right upon the evidence. We have examined the evidence, and are satisfied that it does not warrant a decree for appellants upon this issue. That part of the decree dismissing the bill of complaint is affirmed.
But we cannot approve the decree upon the patent branch of the case. For the reasons stated in our opinion in the Maeomb Case, we hold the patent invalid. This part of the decree is reversed, with direction to dismiss the counterclaim. Costs shall be divided equally between the parties.