Legal Opinion
Shull Perforating Co. v. Cavins
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 10, 1938No. 8291PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WILBUR, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from an interlocutory-decree in a suit brought by appellees charging infringement of patent ‘No. 1,917,211 issued to O. A. Cavins. The master found that claims 18 and 24 of the patent were valid and were infringed. The court sustained the finding, and entered an interlocutory decree for an injunction and an accounting.
Appellant contends that the patent is invalid because anticipated by previous patents, and that if valid the claims are limited to a narrow field by the prior art, by the nature of the invention, and by the specifications, and that thus…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Henry v. City of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1919
- Wessel v. United Mattress Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1905
- St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Studebaker Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914
- Thordarson Electric Mfg. Co. v. General Transformer Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1937
3Cited by15 opinions
- Randolph M. Howes, Janice Kinchen Howes, and Arrow International, Inc. v. Medical Components, Inc., and American Hospital Supply Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- Southern Saw Service, Inc. v. Pittsburgh-Erie Saw CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1957
- Wire Tie MacH. Co. v. Pacific Box CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1939
- Craftint Mfg. Co. v. BakerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938
- In re AltenpohlCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.