Legal Opinion

Bankers' Utilities Co. v. Pacific Nat. Bank

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided November 21, 1927No. 4981PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GILBERT, Circuit Judge.

The appellees present a petition for modification of the mandate sent down by this court in the above-entitled cause; the court having found that the deeree of the court below dismissing the suit was eiToneons, and that claim 6 of the patent sued upon was valid. It is now represented that the mandate was erroneous, in allowing the appellants costs on the appeal, and that the case comes within the provisions of section 973, Rev. Stat. (28 USCA § 821; Comp. St. § 1614), which provides in substance that if, in a suit for infringement of a patent, it appears that the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. StickneyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1903
  2. Excelsior Steel Furnace Co. v. Williamson Heater Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1920
  3. Johnson v. Foos Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1905
  4. Liquid Carbonic Co. v. Gilchrist Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1918
  5. Kahn v. StarrelsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1905

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Sachs v. Hartford Electric Supply Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
  2. John W. Gottschalk Mfg. Co. v. Springfield Wire & Tinsel Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1935

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API