Legal Opinion

Wirebounds Patents Co. v. Saranac Automatic Mach. Cor.

District Court, W.D. Michigan

Decided July 9, 1927No. 2029PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RAYMOND, District Judge.

The three patents in suit relate to two machines and a method for producing wirebound boxes. These were issued February 9, 1915, to In-wood and Lavenberg, and are No. 1,128,144 for “combined carriage and former for wire-bound box machines,” application filed October 14,1904, referred to hereinafter as tbe workholder patent; No. 1,128,145, for “means for making box blanks,” application filed October 27, 1904, referred to hereinafter as stapling machine patent; and No. 1,128,252, for “method of making boxes,” application filed April 21, 1914, hereinafter referred to as…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Webster Electric Co. v. Splitdorf Electrical Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
  2. Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1923
  3. Victor Talking MacH. Co. v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1925
  4. Wirebounds Patents Co. v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1916

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Wirebounds Patents Co. v. H. R. Gibbons Box Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1928
  2. Wirebounds Patents Co. v. Saranac Automatic MacHine Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API