Legal Opinion
John W. Gottschalk Mfg. Co. v. Springfield Wire & Tinsel Co.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Decided February 15, 1935No. 2940PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Per curiam
The appellee has filed a motion in this case, in which the Sedgley patent and Gottschalk and Grater patents were sued upon, asking that our order of January 4, 1935, be modified by striking therefrom the words “the appellants recover costs of appeal,” and inserting in their stead “the appellants recover no costs”; and that as to the Gottschalk and Grater patents the ap-pellee be allowed to “recover its costs of appeal.”
The claims of the Sedgley patent put in issue in the District Court were 19, 28, 29, 30, and 31, and 'in the Gottschalk patent claim 3. In the District Court the bill was.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- O'Reilly v. MorseSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Sessions v. RomadkaSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Ensten v. Simon, Ascher & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Yale Lock Manufacturing Co. v. SargentSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. StickneyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1903
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Southern States Equipment Corp. v. Usco Power Equipment Corp. Usco Power Equipment Corp. v. Southern States Equipment CorpCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1953
- Karl Zysset and New-Nel Kitchen Products Company, and Cross v. Popeil Brothers, Inc., and Cross Karl Zysset v. Popeil Brothers, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1963
- United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. MatheyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1941
- MPT, Inc. v. Marathon Labels, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2007