Legal Opinion

Murray v. C. L. Greeno Co.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided June 16, 1916No. 2809PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio; Howard C. Hollister, Judge. Suit by William A. Murray against the C. I,. Greeno Company. From a decree for defendant, complainant appeals.

1Per curiam

Suit for infringement of United States patent, No. 692,535, issued February 4, 1902, to Murray for spring seat. The district court found noninfringement.

*92The patent has already been twice considered by this court, and held to disclose patentable invention only in the particular means shown for attaching the springs to their support. These means comprise four perforations in an arched metallic support, through which the lower end of the spring is screwed; these perforations being all in the same' horizontal plane, the spring-end is thereby distorted and the spring securely locked in place by…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Murray v. Detroit Wire Spring Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1913
  2. Murray v. D'arcyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1908

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Murray v. Detroit Wire Spring Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1918
  2. Waterbury Farrell Foundry & Machine Co. v. E. J. Manville Mach. Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1917

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API