C. O. Tingley & Co. v. Badger Rubber Works
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
PAGE, Circuit Judge.
Eleven months after the patent in suit, No. 1,612,788, had, on December 28, 1926, been granted for an improved tire flap, this suit was begun, and a month later it was dismissed on appellee’s motion, charging that the patent was void on its face because of lack of patentable novelty and invention.
This ease is quite unusual, in that the specification sets out the state of the art at the time the inventor (Walten) entered the field, and the difference between the flaps in the prior art and the one covered by the patent. The motion admits that infringement speedily followed…
2Cited by1 opinion
- C. O. Tingley & Co. v. Badger Rubber WorksCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1930