Legal Opinion
Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. Thompson Mfg. Co.
District Court, S.D. Iowa
Decided April 15, 1919PublishedCited by 4 opinions
In Equity. Suit by the Vacuum Cleaner Company against the Thompson Manufacturing Company.
1Opinion of the Court
WADE, District Judge.
Counsel for defendant state the issue herein thus:
“Does the prior art disclose a so-called suction or vacuum having an inlet head characterized by a narrow inlet slot, so arranged that its boundaries are adapted to be brought into sealing contact with the surface to be cleaned?”
Answering this question in the affirmative, counsel rely principally upon three patents: McGaffey, Howard & Taite, and Westman.
[1] This case might well be disposed of upon the following adjudications: Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. American Rotary Valve Co., 227 Fed. 998; Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. Innovation…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Topliff v. TopliffSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Canda v. Michigan Malleable Iron Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1903
- Munising Paper Co. v. American Sulphite Pulp Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1915
- Gray Telephone Pay Station Co. v. Baird Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1909
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bellows-Claude Neon Co. v. Sun Ray Gas Corp.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1929
- Minton v. ThomasCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
- Claude Neon Electrical Products, Inc. v. Brilliant Tube Sign Co.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1930
- Porter v. BowersDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1947