Legal Opinion
Collins v. Hupp Motor Car Corp.
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided February 28, 1925No. 348PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
TUTTLE, District Judge.
This is a suit for infringement of patent No. 855,970, granted to Walter B. Pearson June 4, 1907.
The situation presented to the court is that on the one hand the plaintiffs contend that they have a valid patent which has been infringed by the defendant, and on the other hand the defendant contends that the patent is void because of the state of the art, or that the claims must be construed so narrowly that defendant does not infringe.
Speaking generally, the patent shows a device for holding the ordinary door side curtains of an automobile. A rod, which can be attached…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- The Barbed Wire PatentSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Deering v. Winona Harvester WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
3Cited by5 opinions
- Collins v. Hupp Motor Car CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1927
- Eclipse MacH. Co. v. J. H. Specialty Mfg. Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1933
- Collins v. Hupp Motor Car Corp.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1929
- National Motor Bearing Co. v. Consolidated Motor Parts, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1935
- Trustees of the Iam National Pension Fund v. M & K Employee Solutions, LLCDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2022