Legal Opinion
Northwest Engineering Corp. v. Keystone Driller Co.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided March 29, 1934No. 5036, 5035, 5037PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtEvans, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
The defense to claim 4 of the Clutter patent is non-infringement. Claim 4 reads:
“In an excavating machine a pivoted boom, a scoop-carrying member pivotally connected therewith, a pulling member for elevating and lowering said boom, a pivotal means carried by the boom and connecting the pulling member therewith, and said scoop-carrying member, a scoop connected with the scoop-carrying member and projecting toward the boom, and a pulling member connected with said scoop.”
Non-infringement is asserted on the ground that none of the alleged infringing machines…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Alexander v. HillmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- L. P. Larson, Jr., Co. v. Wm. Wrigley, Jr., Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1918
- Byers MacH. Co. v. Keystone Driller Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1930
- Johnson Bros. Engineering Corp. v. MastersCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1931
3Cited by9 opinions
- Universal Oil Products Co. v. Globe Oil & Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1943
- Denominational Envelope Co. v. Duplex Envelope Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1935
- Dennis v. PitnerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1939
- Weil Pump Co. v. Chicago Pump Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1934
- Bela Seating Company v. Poloron Products, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1968
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.