Benthall Mach. Co. v. National Mach. Corp.
District Court, E.D. Virginia
In Equity. Suits by the Benthall Machine Company against the National Machine Corporation, Incorporated, against the Virginia-Carolina Peanut Picker Company, and against Thomas H. Debnam and Walter C. P'erguson, partners trading as the P'erguson Manufacturing Company. On final hearing.
Read the full summary
In Equity. Suits by the Benthall Machine Company against the National Machine Corporation, Incorporated, against the Virginia-Carolina Peanut Picker Company, and against Thomas H. Debnam and Walter C. P'erguson, partners trading as the P'erguson Manufacturing Company. On final hearing. The complainant, the Benthall Machine Company, the owner of the Ferguson & Benthall patent, No. 808,442, for a peanut picker, of the Benthall patent, No. 890,401, for a peanut stemmer, and of the Jones patent, No. 908,271, for a peanut picker and stemmer combined, filed its bills in equity in these causes…
1Opinion of the Court
WADD1RR, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The defenses to the several suits involve many charges of invalidity, the two prominent defenses, however, that apply to all the cases, being: (1) That the patents respectively are invalid because of lack of patentable novelty as shown in the prior art. (2) They deny infringement of any of the patents, and allege special objections to the several patents, as follows: To the Jones patent, (a) the invalidity thereof, because of the anticipation in the prior art by the Pope stemmer; (b) because it describes an inoperative machine; to the…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- The Barbed Wire PatentSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Diamond Rubber Co. of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- MacHine Co. v. MurphySupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Miller v. Eagle Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Barber v. Otis Motor Sales Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1916
- Columbia Graphophone Co. v. Searchlight Horn Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1916
- Searchlight Horn Co. v. Victor Talking Mach. Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1919
- Hazeltine Corporation v. AH Grebe & Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1927
- Yates v. SmithDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1920
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.