327 F. 2d 984 - Tatko Brothers Slate Co v. Capitol Slate Company Tatko Brothers Slate Co
327 F2d 984 Tatko Brothers Slate Co v. Capitol Slate Company Tatko Brothers Slate Co
327 F.2d 984
140 U.S.P.Q. 531
TATKO BROTHERS SLATE CO., Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CAPITOL SLATE COMPANY, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
TATKO BROTHERS SLATE CO., Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NORTH BANGOR SLATE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
TATKO BROTHERS SLATE CO., Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STAR SLATE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
TATKO BROTHERS SLATE CO., Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY DOLLY AND SONS INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
TATKO BROTHERS SLATE CO., Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STEPHENS-JACKSON COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Nos. 14629-14633.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Feb. 7, 1964.
Decided Feb. 17, 1964.
J. Preston Swecker, Washington, D.C. (Robert S. Swecker, Washington, D.C., Frank H. Borden, Philadelphia, Pa., Burns, Doane, Benedict, Swecker & Mathis, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for appellant.
Robert A. Cesari, Boston Mass. (Virgil E. Woodcock, Philadelphia, Pa., John C. Blair, Stamford, Conn., W. Hugo Liepmann, Boston, Mass., Woodcock, Phelan & Washburn, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellees.
Before McLAUGHLIN, GANEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Advertisement
In these patent appeals, the only question is the validity of the single patent involved. The opinion of Judge Grim in the district court1 makes it demonstrably clear that the patent structure, a wood pallet used largely in the slate industry for the loading and transportation of slate, lacks invention over the prior art. The results of similar litigation over the same patent firmly support that view. Tatko Bros. Slate Co. v. Hannon, 270 F.2d 571 (2 Cir. 1959), cert. den. 361 U.S. 915, 80 S.Ct. 260, 4 L.Ed.2d 185 (1959); Vermont Structural Slate Co. v. Tatko Bros. Slate Co., 134 F.Supp. 4 (N.D.N.Y.1955), affd. 233 F.2d 9 (2 Cir. 1956), cert. den. 352 U.S. 917, 77 S.Ct. 216, 1 L.Ed.2d 123 (1956).
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
221 F.Supp. 212 (August 5, 1963)