Legal Opinion
Helbush v. Finkle
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided October 7, 1948No. 11761PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.
In an action by appellants (Herman H. Helbush and Monogram Manufacturing Company) against appellees (Donald H. Finkle and Wedgelock Company), appellees were charged with infringing claims 1 and 2 of patent No. 2,364,408 and claim 11 of patent No. 2,365,787, of which patents Helbush was the owner and Monogram Manufacturing Company was a licensee. Defenses pleaded by appellees were that the claims were invalid for lack of novelty and lack of invention, and that, if valid, they were not infringed. Leaving undetermined the question of their validity, the District Court held…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Ralph N. Brodie Co. v. Hydraulic Press Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1945
- Refrigeration Engineering v. York CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1948
- Measurements Corp. v. Ferris Instrument Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1947
- Pennington Engineering Co. v. Spicer Mfg. CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1947
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- M. O. S. Corporation v. John I. Haas Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967
- Lockwood v. Langendorf United Bakeries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963
- Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Rex L. BrunsingCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967
- Patent Scaffolding Co., Inc. v. Upright, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1952
- Holland Co. v. American Steel FoundriesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1951
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.