Legal Opinion

Packwood v. Briggs & Stratton Corp.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided May 29, 1952No. 10583_1PublishedCited by 72 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HASTIE, Circuit Judge.

In a patent infringement suit a jury found plaintiff’s patent valid and infringed ■by defendants. Thereafter, the trial judge, while candidly stating his own conviction that the patent was invalid for lack of invention, denied defendants’ motion for judgment n. o. v., reasoning that he had no authority to substitute his judgment on the contested issue of invention for that of the jury. On this appeal we have to decide whether this deliberate self restraint was error or proper deference to the role and action of the jury.

In essence-, the alleged invention is a rotating…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
  2. Capital Traction Co. v. HofSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
  3. Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
  4. Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
  5. Jungersen v. Ostby & Barton Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by72 opinions

  1. Swofford v. B & W, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1964
  2. Monroe Auto Equipment Company v. Heckethorn Manufacturing & Supply CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1964
  3. Hygienic Specialties Co. v. H. G. Salzman, Inc., Hutzler Mfg. Co., and C. B. Cotton & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
  4. Allied Wheel Products, Inc. v. RudeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1953
  5. General Motors Corp. v. Estate Stove Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1953

67 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API