AUTOMATIC DEVICES CORPORATION v. SINKO TOOL & MANUFACTURING 314 U.S. 94 (1941)

November 10, 1941

Messrs. Drury W. Cooper and Thomas J. Byrne, both of New York City, and Henry M. Huxley, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. [314 U.S. 94, 95]   Messrs. Russell Wiles and Bernard A. Schroeder, both of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a companion case to Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84 , 62 S.Ct. 37, 86 L.Ed. --, decided this day. The court below held that claims 2, 3, and 11 of the Mead patent (No. 1, 736,544) were invalid and not infringed. 7 Cir., 112 F.2d 335. We granted the petition for certiorari limited to the question of validity of those claims. For the reasons stated in Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., supra, the judgment is

Affirmed.