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.
JAMES B. CLOW & SONS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AUTOMATIC GAS-STEAM RADIATOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, 1930 — 42 F.2d 1016 · caselaw · US
IP
JAMES B. CLOW & SONS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AUTOMATIC GAS-STEAM RADIATOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant
42 F.2d 1016·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1930
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
JAMES B. CLOW & SONS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AUTOMATIC GAS-STEAM RADIATOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 4309.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Sept. 4, 1930.
Byrnes, Stebbins, Parmelee & Blenko, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Geo. E. Stebbins and William H. Webb, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
Henry M. Huxley and Richard Spencer, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by defendant from a decree in an infringement suit based on claims 1, 2, and 3 of letters patent No. 1,580,651, of Eugene V. Daily, for a gas-fired radiator, issued April 13,1926, on an application filed August 28, 1922, and owned by the plaintiff. After hearing, the court below, in an opinion printed in 37 F.(2d) 611, found claims 1, 2, and 3 of the Daily patent valid and infringed by the defendant after fully considering every phase of the ease. There is nothing we can add to Judge Thomson’s clear and convincing opinion. We therefore adopt it as expressing our views and affirm the decree of the court below.