Legal Opinion
Horace B. Brose v. Sears, Roebuck and Company
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided January 26, 1972No. 29816PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge.
This appeal is taken by Brose from the Trial Court’s dismissal, at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence, of a qui tam informer’s suit alleging “mismarking” under 35 U.S.C.A. § 292. 1 The Trial Court found that Appellant failed to prove (i) falsity of the marking in issue, (ii) intent to deceive the public on the part of Sears, (iii) any marking by Sears, and (iv) that the marking was done to any “unpatented article.” 2 Brose’s failure to prove any one of the above elements would have proved fatal to his cause since the Act is penal in nature and must be…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Lear, Inc. v. AdkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Ansul Company v. Uniroyal, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1969
- London v. Everett H. Dunbar Corp.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1910
- Lyon v. BohDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1924
- Bros Inc. v. W. E. Grace Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1965
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Kaspar Wire Works, Inc. v. Leco Engineering and MacHine Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
- Studiengesellschaft Kohle Mbh, as Trustee for the Max-Planck-Institut Fur Kohlenforschung v. Eastman Kodak CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
- Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
- Clontech Laboratories, Inc. v. Invitrogen Corp. (Formerly Life Technologies, Inc.)Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
- Mayview Corp. v. RodsteinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.