Murray v. Detroit Wire Spring Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Appeal from the District.Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan; Alexis C. Angelí, Judge. (Suit in equity by William A. Murray against the Detroit Wire Spring Company. Decree (195 Fed. '774) for defendant, and complainant appeals. Murray Drought the usual form of infringement suit, based on his patent No. 692,535, issued February 4, 1902, for a spring seat.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District.Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan; Alexis C. Angelí, Judge. (Suit in equity by William A. Murray against the Detroit Wire Spring Company. Decree (195 Fed. '774) for defendant, and complainant appeals. Murray Drought the usual form of infringement suit, based on his patent No. 692,535, issued February 4, 1902, for a spring seat. The patent was considered by this -court, and held valid, but not infringed, in an opinion by 'Judge Severens. Murray v. D’Arcy, 161 Fed. 352,188 C. C. A. 364. The patent was there sufficiently described and…
1Opinion of the CourtDenison, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). [1] In the former case, it was decided that the patent was valid, but was’ not entitled to a broad range of equivalents. The record in the present case contains several earlier patents not before considered," but nothing of strikingly different character or effect, or which ought tó lead us to a different conclusion from that before reached. As was said by this court under similar circumstances in Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Brennan, 127 Fed. 145, 62 C. C. A. 259:
“The validity of the patent is a thing which must be regarded as adjudged, and must be accepted as the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1897
- Herman v. Youngstown Car Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1911
- Penfield v. Chambers Bros. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1899
- King Ax Co. v. HubbardCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1899
- Ryder v. SchlichterCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1903
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Williams Iron Works Co. v. Hughes Tool Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1940
- Freeman v. AltvaterCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1933
- Coats Loaders & Stackers, Inc. v. HendersonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1956
- Hartford-Empire Co. v. Swindell Bros.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1938
- Munising Paper Co. v. American Sulphite Pulp Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1915
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.