Davey Tree Expert Co. v. Van Billiard
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Edward G. Bradford, Judge. Bill by the Davey Tree Expert Company and others against Rue J. Van Billiard and another. From1 a decree which dismissed plaintiffs’ bill in so far as it relied on one patent, because plaintiffs refused to file a disclaimer as to the first claim of said patent, which was found invalid by the trial court, plaintiffs appeal.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Edward G. Bradford, Judge. Bill by the Davey Tree Expert Company and others against Rue J. Van Billiard and another. From1 a decree which dismissed plaintiffs’ bill in so far as it relied on one patent, because plaintiffs refused to file a disclaimer as to the first claim of said patent, which was found invalid by the trial court, plaintiffs appeal. The following memorandum1 opinion of the court below was filed March 14, 1918: “This court has heretofore found that United States patent No. 890,968 is…
1Opinion of the Court
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
This case is one that challenges a consideration of some matters not discussed at the hearing. The subject involved is what is commonly known as “tree doctoring” by filling up the cavities of decaying trees. The care of trees is a matter of such general importance, and one of the patents involved is of so broad, inclusive a character, that if the inventor has benefited the art in the way he claims, he is entitled to and should have a broad, generic claim to cover his invention. On the other hand, if his invention is not of that character, he should not preclude the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Davey Tree Expert Co. v. Van BilliardDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1918
3Cited by1 opinion
- Wright v. BarnardDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1919