U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1959

Scripto, Inc. v. Ferber Corporation

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided May 13, 1959 · McLaughlin, Kalodner, Staley

267 F.2d 308; 121 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 339; 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3884 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Warley L. Parrott, Charlotte, N. C. (Nicholas Conover English, McCarter & English, Newark, N. J., Ernest P. Rogers, Smith, Kilpatrick, Cody, Rogers & McClatchey, Atlanta, Ga., Parrott & Richards, Charlotte, N. C., William J. Ormsby, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., on the brief), for appellant., Maxwell E. Sparrow, New York City (Milton Rosenkranz, Jersey City, N. J., on the brief), for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision. The 16 that cite it most often are listed here.

Soundscriber Corp. v. United States (Court of Claims 1966)
Watts v. University of Delaware (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1979)
Allegheny Drop Forge Company v. Portec Inc. (3d Cir. 1976)
ALLEGHENY DROP FORGE COMPANY v. Portec, Inc. (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1974)
Azoplate Corporation v. Silverlith, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1973)
Roller Bearing Co. of America v. Bearings, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1971)
Phillips Electronic & Pharmaceutical Industries Corp. v. Thermal & Electronics Industries, Inc. (District Court, D. New Jersey 1970)
Worthington v. Southern New Jersey Newspapers, Inc. (District Court, D. New Jersey 1970)
Package Devices, Inc. v. Sun Ray Drug Co. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1969)
Eagle Iron Works v. McLanahan Corp. (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1969)
American Tube & Controls, Inc. v. General Fittings Co. (District Court, D. Rhode Island 1968)
California Research Corporation v. David L. Ladd, Commissioner of Patents (D.C. Cir. 1966)
The Soundscriber Corporation v. The United States (Court of Claims 1966)
Engelhard Industries, Inc. v. Sel-Rex Corporation (District Court, D. New Jersey 1966)
Armco Steel Corp. v. United States Steel Corp. (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1962)
Carlton Manufacturing Co. v. Fram Corp. (District Court, D. Rhode Island 1961)

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.

Appellant's mechanical patent, No. 2,748,748, and two design patents, Nos. 171,093 and 176,469, were held to be invalid by the district court, primarily because they are all covered by prior art. The record affords sound basis for these conclusions.

The trial judge did not, as asserted by appellant, ignore the presumption of validity attaching to appellant's patents. He did consider, and properly, the fact that a wealth of relevant prior art had not been called to the attention of the Examiner which circumstances detracted materially from the importance of the presumption in these instances. Dole Refrigerating Company v. Amerio Contact Plate Freezers, Inc., 3 Cir., 1959, 265 F.2d 627; Murray Company of Texas, Inc. v. Continental Gin Co., 5 Cir., 1959, 264 F.2d 65, 69.

The judgment will be affirmed upon the opinion of Judge Hartshorne in the district court.

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