Legal Opinion
Concrete Mixing & Conveying Co. v. R. C. Storrie & Co.
District Court, W.D. Washington
Decided November 12, 1927No. 394PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BOURQUIN, District Judge.
This infringement suit involves claims 1, 2, 17, 18, 24, 29, 34, and 35 of McMiehael’s patent 1,-127,660, granted February 9, 1915, on application filed January 14,1907. The usual defenses are interposed.
The answer alleges there are 10,000 patents in the art, cites 100, and there are an extraordinary number of references. For this, palliation is attempted by semiapologetie “inability to forecast how they may De judged by the court,” which may be taken as a courteous expression of doubt of the court’s comprehension, or of fond hope that it may be deluded. Of the claims…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hobbs v. BeachSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Concrete Appliances Co. v. GomerySupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Concrete Mixing & Conveying Co. v. Ulen Contracting Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1925
3Cited by3 opinions
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Former Officers And Directors Of Metropolitan BankCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- Concrete Mixing & Conveying Co. v. Powers-Kennedy Contracting Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
- Lektophone Corp. v. Rola Co.District Court, N.D. California · 1928