Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • The Collison Surgical Engineering Company v. Murray-Baumgartner Surgical Instrument Co., Inc., 343 F.2d 162, 4th Cir. (1965)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case involving the validity of a patent for a surgical bone screw. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding the patent invalid for lack of invention over the prior art. The appellate court examined the record and agreed with the district court's full and carefully reasoned opinion that Patent No. 2,494,229 issued to John G. Collison for a surgical bone screw was invalid due to lack of invention over the prior art. As the patent was found invalid, the court did not consider other defenses raised in the lower courts.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1965-03-04 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 343 F.2d 162 Docket: 9722

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case involving the validity of a patent for a surgical bone screw. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding the patent invalid for lack of invention over the prior art. The appellate court examined the record and agreed with the district court's full and carefully reasoned opinion that Patent No. 2,494,229 issued to John G. Collison for a surgical bone screw was invalid due to lack of invention over the prior art. As the patent was found invalid, the court did not consider other defenses raised in the lower courts.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    2 views2 pages

    The Collison Surgical Engineering Company v. Murray-Baumgartner Surgical Instrument Co., Inc., 343 F.2d 162, 4th Cir. (1965)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case involving the validity of a patent for a surgical bone screw. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding the patent invalid for lack of invention over the prior art. The appellate court examined the record and agreed with the district court's full and carefully reasoned opinion that Patent No. 2,494,229 issued to John G. Collison for a surgical bone screw was invalid due to lack of invention over the prior art. As the patent was found invalid, the court did not consider other defenses raised in the lower courts.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    343 F.

    2d 162
    145 U.S.P.Q. 1

    The COLLISON SURGICAL ENGINEERING COMPANY,


    Appellant,
    v.
    MURRAY-BAUMGARTNER SURGICAL INSTRUMENT
    CO., Inc., Appellee.
    No. 9722.

    United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.


    Argued Feb. 4, 1965.
    Decided March 4, 1965.

    Leonard J. Kerpelman, Baltimore, Md., for appellant.


    William D. Hall, Washington, D.C. (Roger A. Clapp, and Hinkley &
    Singley, Baltimore, Md., and Homer R. Montague, Washington, D.C., on
    brief), for appellee.
    Before SOBELOFF and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges, and
    CHRISTIE, District Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    This appeal involves the validity of patent No. 2,494,229 issued to John G.
    Collison for a surgical bone screw for use in applying an internal fixation plate
    to a fractured bone. The District Court, in a full and carefully reasoned opinion,
    reached the conclusion that this patent was invalid for lack of invention over
    the prior art. 230 F.Supp. 572 (D.Md.1964).

    We have carefully examined the record in light of the appellant's contentions


    and find ourselves in complete accord with the District Court's disposition of
    the case. Concluding that the patent is invalid, we have no occasion to consider
    alternative defenses raised below and in this court.

    Affirmed.

    You might also like