Legal Opinion

Hastings Mfg. Co. v. Gray

District Court, W.D. Michigan

Decided October 2, 1940No. 87Published

1Opinion of the Court

RAYMOND, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion to dismiss. The substantial ground of the motion is that it appears upon the face of the patent that the patentee has included in his claims an old .element, namely, an expander spring which presses the piston ring elements outward and increases the unit pressure, while admitting that this spring is a non-essential and that there is no new co-action or cooperation between the elements of the claims relied upon. Segregated portions of the specification may justify such conclusions. However, other portions of the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
  2. Expanded Metal Co. v. BradfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
  3. Mumm v. Jacob E. Decker & SonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
  4. Adamson v. GillilandSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  5. Winget v. RockwoodCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1934

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API