Indurated Fibre Industries Co. v. Grace
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts
In Equity. Bill by the Indurated Fibre Industries Company and the Builders’ Insulating Tube Company against James J. Grace, Charles S. Pinkham, and Eugene W. Godfrey, for infringement of letters patent No. 273,869, issued March 13, 1883, to the Underground Electric Cable Company, as assignee by mesne assignments of William and Timothy G. McMahon, for certain improvements in underground cables. Heard on demurrer to the bill. Demurrer overruled.
Read the full summary
In Equity. Bill by the Indurated Fibre Industries Company and the Builders’ Insulating Tube Company against James J. Grace, Charles S. Pinkham, and Eugene W. Godfrey, for infringement of letters patent No. 273,869, issued March 13, 1883, to the Underground Electric Cable Company, as assignee by mesne assignments of William and Timothy G. McMahon, for certain improvements in underground cables. Heard on demurrer to the bill. Demurrer overruled. The specifications thus describe the invention: “Our invention relates to insulated conductors for conveying electrical currents for any of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Putnam, Circuit Judge.
One ground of demurrer assigned is that the bill is defective because it does not, in terms, allege a joint infringement, or at least set out sufficient facts from which a joint infringement can be gathered. Neither party has furnished me any decision of any *127court, or any observation of any text writer, or referred me to approved forms, directly touching this proposition, unless Rob. Pat. § 1104, and Shickle v. Foundry Co., 22 Fed. Rep. 105. What is said in Robinson on Patents rests entirely on Shickle v. Foundry Co.; and this case was an oral ruling, made apparently…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- The Barbed Wire PatentSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- McClain v. OrtmayerSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Brown v. PiperSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Magowan v. New York Belting & Packing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Oshkosh Waterworks Co. v. OshkoshSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- American Fibre-Chamois Co. v. Buckskin-Fibre Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1896
- Luten v. Kansas City Bridge Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1922
- Henderson v. TompkinsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1894
- I. T. S. Rubber Co. v. Essex Rubber Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1920
- Heaton Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. v. Schlocht-MeyerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio · 1895
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.