Legal Opinion

Hay v. S. F. Heath Cycle Co.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Decided January 6, 1896No. 255PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana. This was a bill in equity by the S. F. Heath Cycle Company against Thomas Hay and V. B. Willcts for alleged infringement of a patent for a device for inflating pneumatic tires. In the circuit court the patent was sustained, infringement declared, and a decree entered for complainants accordingly. 67 Fed. 246. The defendants appeal.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana. This was a bill in equity by the S. F. Heath Cycle Company against Thomas Hay and V. B. Willcts for alleged infringement of a patent for a device for inflating pneumatic tires. In the circuit court the patent was sustained, infringement declared, and a decree entered for complainants accordingly. 67 Fed. 246. The defendants appeal. This is a suit for damages and to enjoin infringement of letters patent of the United States No. 509,224, for an “inflating device for pneumatic tires,” issued October 24, 1898, to…

1Opinion of the Court

WOODS, Circuit Judge,

after making the foregoing statement* delivered the opinion of the court.

There being no dispute here about infringement, the sole inquiry is whether the patent is invalid for lack of novelty. The claims, not differing essentially one from the other, are for a combination, but concerning the elements which compose it counsel and the experts seem not to be agreed. According to the testimony of the expert examined in behalf of the complainant the combination “includes an air pump and its hose, and a pneumatic tire and nipple, and mechanism for compressing the hose upon the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. S. F. Heath Cycle Co. v. HayU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · 1895

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Detroit Motor Appliance Co. v. BurkeDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1925
  2. Friend v. Burnham & Morrill Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1932
  3. Johnson Automobile Lock Co. v. Noser Instant Auto Lock Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1925
  4. Automatic Appliance Co. v. McNiece Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1927
  5. City of St. Louis v. PrendergastCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1928

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API