Legal Opinion
Kammerdiner v. S. R. Bowen Co.
District Court, S.D. California
Decided May 24, 1933PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
COSGRAVE, District Judge.
Suit for patent infringement. Plaintiff is the owner by assignment from the patentee, Robert McDonald Pyles, of patent No. 1,683,096, application for which was filed May 2,1921, and patent issued September i, 1928. It is for a rotary jar, a mechanism used in rotary drilling of oil wells for dislodging and recovering tools lost or stuck in the well, and is designed to loosen the obstruction by force applied suddenly; that is, by jarring it. Henee it is called a “jar” in the oil well drilling trade. Plaintiffs’ device is called the “Pyles jar.”
The tool is used after the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Deering v. Winona Harvester WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- United States v. Berdan Fire-Arms Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Union Steam-Pump Co. v. Battle Creek Steam-Pump Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1900
- Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co. v. Gould Coupler Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 1917
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kammerdiner v. S. R. Bowen Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1934