From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Binks Manufacturing Co. v. Spee-Flo Mfg. Corp.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Apr 18, 1968
392 F.2d 585 (5th Cir. 1968)

Opinion

No. 24851.

April 18, 1968.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas; John V. Singleton, Jr., Judge.

Tom Arnold, Houston, Tex., Thomas R. Juettner, Chicago, Ill., Arnold, Roylance, Kruger Durkee, Houston, Tex., for appellant.

Edward C. Hutcheson, Houston, Tex., Harold F. McNenny, Cleveland, Ohio, McNenny, Farrington, Pearne Gordon, Cleveland, Ohio, Hutcheson, Taliaferro Hutcheson, Houston, Tex., of counsel, for appellee.

Before COLEMAN and CLAYTON, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON, District Judge.


The Spee-Flo Manufacturing Company, appellee, charged Binks Manufacturing Company, appellant, with infringement of Spee-Flo patent number 3,000,576. The District Court found the patent valid and infringed. The opinion of the District Court is published at 264 F. Supp. 542 (1967).

Although most favorably impressed by the brilliant argument of counsel for appellant, presented both orally and in briefs, we are nevertheless convinced that the District Judge was right. We see no necessity for duplication of or further comment on the opinion below.

The judgment, therefore, will be affirmed and the case remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

Affirmed and remanded.


Summaries of

Binks Manufacturing Co. v. Spee-Flo Mfg. Corp.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Apr 18, 1968
392 F.2d 585 (5th Cir. 1968)
Case details for

Binks Manufacturing Co. v. Spee-Flo Mfg. Corp.

Case Details

Full title:BINKS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellant, v. The SPEE-FLO MANUFACTURING…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Apr 18, 1968

Citations

392 F.2d 585 (5th Cir. 1968)

Citing Cases

Spee-Flo Mfg. Corp. v. Braniff Airways, Inc.

We therefore affirm the conclusion that Patent No. 3,000,576 was valid and infringed. Gray Co., Inc. v.…

Antici v. KBH Corp.

" Samuelson v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 323 F.2d 944 at 949-950 (5 Cir. 1963), quoting Matthews v. Koolvent Metal…