U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1932

UNION SOLVENTS CORPORATION v. Guaranty Trust Company of New York

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided December 6, 1932 · Woolley, Davis, and Thompson, Circuit Judges

61 F.2d 1041; 15 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 237; 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 4589 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

George Wharton Pepper, of Philadelphia, Pa., George T. Haight and M. K. Hobbs, both of Chicago, Ill., and Charles F. Curley, of Wilmington, Del., for appellant., Merrell E. Clark, Maxwell Barns, and Philip C. Peck, all of New York City, and William G. Mahaffy, of Wilmington, Del., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Jack R. Wands, Vincent R. Zurawski, Jr., and Hubert J.P. Schoemaker (Fed. Cir. 1988)
In re Bergy (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1979)
In re Bergy (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1977)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a decree of the District Court holding valid and infringed claims 1 and 3 of United States patent No. 1,315,585, issued to Charles Weizmann on September 9, 1919, relating to the production of acetone and butyl alcohol through the fermentation of starchy bodies by means of certain bacteria.

Claim 3 is the broader, and reads as follows : “3. The process of producing acetone and butyl alcohol by the inoculation of a cereal composition with the herein described bacteria which are capable unaided of converting sterile fermentable cereals substantially into acetone and butyl alcohol.”

The questions of the validity and infringement of the claims in suit are in issue. The defendant says that they are invalid, but that, even if valid, it does not infringe. The argument in support of these defenses was urged in the District Court, and was ably and forcibly presented here, but the careful and comprehensive opinion of the learned District Judge adequately answers these arguments and convinces us that the invention disclosed in the patent created a new and important commercial enterprise, and on his opinion the decree is affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.