Affiliations

• National Biscuit Co. v. Crown Baking Co.

  Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1939-06-30 · cited 24×

  This case was a patent infringement suit brought by National Biscuit Co. as assignee of McLaren patent No. 1,551,998 for an automatic machine to manufacture ice cream cones, against Crown Baking Co. and related defendants. The plaintiff appealed the portion of the district court decree that invalidated many of the asserted claims. The appeals court affirmed, holding that the invalidated claims (including groups found invalid for prior commercial sale and use, lack of patentable invention over prior art, and anticipation by the Dietrich patent) were barred because the 1920 version of the machine had been sold and used commercially by companies such as Atlantic Cone Company more than two years before the March 1921 filing date, with findings that the machine was operable despite some defects. Claims 5, 12, 47, and 60 were found valid and infringed but were not subject to cross-appeal. The decision rested on the master's factual findings, adopted by the district court under the clearly erroneous standard, and applicable patent law rules on prior public use.

  business & regulatory

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (4,414 words)

• Renaud Sales Co. v. Davis

  Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1939-06-13 · cited 12×

  This case involved a trademark dispute in which Renaud Sales Co. sued John H. Davis for unlawfully using the 'Renaud' name and 'Renaud-Paris-1817' mark in selling perfumes. The district court found that Davis had infringed the plaintiff's rights but dismissed the complaint because the plaintiff had unclean hands, having changed its perfume formula to a lower-quality product while continuing to use the original trademark and labels without disclosing the alteration to the public. On cross-appeals, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal on unclean hands grounds, citing precedents that material misrepresentations about a product's composition or origin bar equitable relief regardless of the defendant's conduct. It reversed the ruling on the temporary injunction bond, holding that the plaintiff was liable for the liquidated damages because it did not prevail on the merits and the injunction should not have issued.

  business & regulatoryprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (1,421 words)

• Providence Journal Co. v. Broderick

  Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1939-06-13 · cited 27×

  The Providence Journal Company sued the Collector of Internal Revenue to recover about nine thousand dollars in taxes, claiming a deduction under the Revenue Act of 1932 for the undepreciated value of buildings it voluntarily demolished in 1933 to clear land for a new facility. The District Court denied the deduction, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court found that the company had purchased the property in 1925 with the explicit intention of razing the existing buildings once leases expired, as shown by board minutes and other records, and that demolition occurred earlier than planned due to lease cancellations. Under Article 172 of Regulations 77, when a taxpayer acquires real estate intending to remove buildings to erect new ones, no deductible loss arises from the demolition; the remaining undepreciated cost instead becomes part of the capital investment in the property.

  taxes

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (1,729 words)