Legal Opinion
Wirebounds Patents Co. v. Saranac Automatic MacH. Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided January 25, 1930No. 5076PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DENISON, Circuit Judge.
Infringement suit, based upon three patents issued February 9, 1915, to Inwood and Lavenberg, numbered 1,128,144, 1,128,145, and 1,-128,252, and covering respectively: An apparatus, called the “workholder,” used in or in connection with a wirebound box blank machine; an organized box blank machine for applying binding wire to assembled box parts; and a method of making wirebound boxes. The first and second were based upon copending applications, filed in October, 1904, and the third upon a divisional application, cut out from the second. A fourth patent, now expired and…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- The Barbed Wire PatentSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Diamond Rubber Co. of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Miller v. Eagle Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Expanded Metal Co. v. BradfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
- United States v. American Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1897
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Reo Motor Car Co. v. Gear Grinding MacH. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1930
- Application of StanleyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1954
- Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co. v. Refining, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1943
- Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. v. QuackenbushCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1931
- Hope Basket Co. v. Product Advancement Corp. Product Advancement Corp. v. Hope Basket Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1951
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.