Legal Opinion
Mead Morrison Mfg. Co. v. Exeter Mach. Works
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Decided May 29, 1912No. 122PublishedCited by 2 opinions
In Equity. Suit by the Mead Morrison Manufacturing Company against the Exeter Machine Works. On demurrer to bill.
1Opinion of the Court
WITMER, District Judge.
The defendant, the Exeter Machine Works, is charged by the complainant, Mead Morrison Manufacturing Company, in this bill in equity with infringement of letters patent No. 722,613, granted March 10, 1903, to Almor E. Norris, for improvements in hoisting apparatus.
The defendant comes by demurrer, and seeks the dismissal of the bill, alleging that it is wholly without equity, and, furthermore, that:
“It is apparent upon the face of the patent in suit that the alleged invention therein referred to and claimed is not a patentable invention in view of the state of the art as…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Krementz v. S. Cottle Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
- American Fibre-Chamois Co. v. Buckskin-Fibre Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1896
- Beer v. WalbridgeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1900
- Krick v. JansenU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1892
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- In re DeLanceyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1947
- Luten v. Kansas City Bridge Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1922