Cookingham v. Warren Bros.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtHunt, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Our understanding of Warren’s invention is that the mineral aggregate detailed by him of itself resists displacement by traffic. Stability is obtained by following his idea, and is due to the arrangement of the mineral • structure which enables the use of a softer asphalt than would be otherwise practical, and'this is so by reason of the fact that a greater proportion of the wear and strain is carried by the mineral elements than by the binding constituent.
An unusually long history of litigation surrounds the Warren patent. In Warren Bros. Co. v. Owosso…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- The Barbed Wire PatentSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Badische Anilin & Soda Fabrik v. A. Klipstein & Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1903
- Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Elmira & H. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1896
- Diamond Patent Co. v. S. E. Carr Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1914
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- United States v. Geronimo Jesus GonzalezCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1983
- Warren Bros. v. KibbeDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1925
- Jay v. SuetterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1929
- People v. Santos, J.D.Superior Court of Guam · 2019
- Wisconsin Foundation Research Foundation v. Vitamin Technologists, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 1941