Legal Opinion
United Shoe MacHinery Corp. v. Brooklyn Wood Heel Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided May 13, 1935No. 273PublishedCited by 41 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
L. HAND, Circuit Judge.
This is a suit in equity:in the:usual form, for the infringement of a patent ion a machine to fashion wooden heels for woft men’s shoes. The only issue is as to the priority of invention between Sawyer, the patentee of the patent in suit, and Pope and Mann, the joint patentees of the patent under which the defendant manufactures; No. 1,669,144 issued May 8, 1928. In the District Court the defendant argued in addition that it did not infringe, and that the art had anticipated Sawyer’s invention;, but these defences are not pressed here and we shall disregard them. Thus…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Drum v. TurnerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1914
- Brooks v. SacksCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1897
- Emerson & Norris Co. v. Simpson Bros. Corp.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1913
- Willard v. Union Tool Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1918
- Dey Time Register Co. v. W. H. Bundy Recording Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1910
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Globe-Union, Inc. v. Chicago Telephone Supply Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1939
- Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1956
- Monaplastics, Inc. v. Caldor, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1967
- Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1954
- Reeves Brothers, Inc. v. US Laminating Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 1968
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.