U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1931

Denaro v. Maryland Baking Co.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided June 17, 1931

50 F.2d 1074; 10 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 80; 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 4666 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Jesse A. Holton, of Boston, Mass. (John E. Cross, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellant., Albert E. Dieterich, of Washington, D. C. (Bowie & Burke, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

W. F. & John Barnes Co. v. International Harvester Co. (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1943)
Penmac Corp. v. Esterbrook Steel Pen Mfg. Co. (2d Cir. 1940)
Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Coe (D.C. Cir. 1938)

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 of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The main contention of appellant on this appeal is that the court below in its opinion (Denaro v. Maryland Baking Co., 40 F.(2d) 513) erroneously applied the principles laid down in the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co., 270 U. S. 390, 46 S. Ct. 324, 70 L. Ed. 651. A careful consideration of the briefs and argument before us, and a study of the record, lead us to the conclusion that the judge below not only properly applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the Milbum Case, but also reached the correct conclusion on the merits. The judge below had the advantage of seeing machines used by the appellee in actual operation, and his conclusion should be given all the more weight because of that fact.

The questions raised by the counterclaim of defendant are not before us, as defendant *1075did not appeal; but, so far as tbe opinion of the judge below relates to the patents relied on by complainant and the alleged infringement thereof, same is adopted as the opinion of this court, and the decree below will accordingly be affirmed.

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