Fullerton Walnut Growers' Ass'n v. Anderson-Barngrover Mfg. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Southern District of California. From a final decree in favor of the appellee against the appellant for §23,-256.10, the profits adjudged to have been realized by the latter from infringing claim 2 of letters patent 663,069, issued to Daniel Farrell on December 4, 1900, covering a process for bleaching nuts, the present appeal is taken.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Southern District of California. From a final decree in favor of the appellee against the appellant for §23,-256.10, the profits adjudged to have been realized by the latter from infringing claim 2 of letters patent 663,069, issued to Daniel Farrell on December 4, 1900, covering a process for bleaching nuts, the present appeal is taken. The specifications and claims of the patent are as follows: “Be it known that I, Daniel Farrell, a citizen of the United States, residing at San Jose, county of Santa Clara,…
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The invention covered by the patent relates to the preparation of English walnuts for the market by bleaching their shells. The principal sources of these walnuts are Southern California and Southern Erance. From the evidence it appears that the French nuts are naturally clear and bright in appearance and require no bleaching, while a portion of the California product is discolored by black splotches, caused by rains, dews, fog's, sunburn, bacteria, or other causes, and unless bleached is unsalable, or can only be sold at a largely reduced price. Prior to…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Minnesota v. HitchcockSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Century Electric Co. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1911
- Denominational Envelope Co. v. Duplex Envelope Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1935
- Columbia Wire Co. v. Kokomo Steel & Wire Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1911
- Dunkley Co. v. Central California CanneriesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1925
- Johnson Co. v. Philad Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.