Risdon Iron & Locomotive Works v. Medart
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. This was a suit in equity instituted by Philip and William Medart against the appellant, for the infringement of three letters patent granted t’o Philip Medart,' viz.: Patent No. 248,599, dated October 25, 1881, for the manufacture of belt pulleys; patent No. 248,598, also dated October 25, 1881, for a belt pulley; and patent No. 238,702, granted March 8,1881, also for a belt pulley.…
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. This was a suit in equity instituted by Philip and William Medart against the appellant, for the infringement of three letters patent granted t’o Philip Medart,' viz.: Patent No. 248,599, dated October 25, 1881, for the manufacture of belt pulleys; patent No. 248,598, also dated October 25, 1881, for a belt pulley; and patent No. 238,702, granted March 8,1881, also for a belt pulley. • t In the first patent, No. 248,599, the patentee stated in his specification that his invention “relates to that class…
1Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Brown,
after stating the case, delivered, the opinion of the court.
The three patents involved in this suit are for an improved belt pulley, and for the manufacture of the same." Each of them requires a separate consideration.
i. Patent No. 248,599 is for an improved process of manufacturing that class of belt pulleys formed of á'wrought-metal rim and a separate centre, usually a spider, and usually made, of cast metal. The drawings represent the machinery for carrying out the invention, and the pulley at the various stages of its manufacture. The process of manufacture is set forth…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- O'Reilly v. MorseSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Cochrane v. DeenerSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Smith v. NicholsSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Dolbear v. American Bell Telephone CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1888
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by131 opinions
- Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Parker v. FlookSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Expanded Metal Co. v. BradfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
126 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.