Legal Opinion
Wirebounds Patents Co. v. Saranac Automatic MacHine Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided July 3, 1933No. 6226PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MOORMAN, Circuit Judge.
This is the second suit brought by appellant against the appellee for infringement of the Inwood and Lavenberg method patent 1,128,252 issued February 9,1915. The first ease involved three patents: A machine patent, a workholder patent, and the patent in suit. The trial court held in that case that there was no infringement of the machine and workholder patents, and that the method patent was void for laches because of inexcusable delay in filing the divisional application upon which it was issued. (D. C.) 24 F.(2d) 872. This court reversed the decree of the trial court…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Webster Electric Co. v. Splitdorf Electrical Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Chapman v. WintroathSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- United States v. First National Pictures, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Woodbridge v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Saranac Automatic MacHine Corp. v. Wirebounds Patents Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Vitamin Technologists, Inc. v. Wisconsin Alumni Research FoundationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1945
- Fehr v. Activated Sludge, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1936
- Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2002
- National Tube Co. v. Steel & Tubes, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1937
- Tampax, Inc. v. Personal Products CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1941
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.