Legal Opinion
Craftint Mfg. Co. v. Baker
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 10, 1938No. 8371PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WILBUR, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from an interlocutory decree of the District Court of April 24, 1936, holding claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of letters patent No. 1,709,600, issued April 16, 1929, to appellee Baker, valid and infringed by the appellant.
The invention disclosed by the Baker patent relates to a process for preparing so-called “camera copy” to be used for lithography, photoengraving, rotogravure offset press, and like work. The process involves, first, photographing lines, screen, stippling, dots or the like, referred to in the briefs as “Ben Day” effects, and making a…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Fur Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1905
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Billy K. Watkins v. Northwestern Ohio Tractor Pullers Association, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1980
- Kemart Corp. v. Printing Arts Research Laboratories, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1953
- Johnson Co. v. Philad Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938
- Kimberly Corp. v. Hartley Pen Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1956
- Monaco v. HoffmanDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1960
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.