B. F. Avery & Sons v. J. I. Case Plow Works
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. In this suit for infringement of claims 2 to 8. inclusive, of patent No. 650,-771, issued on May 29, 1900, to appellants as assignees of George 0. Avery, claims 2 to 6, inclusive, were held to be invalid, and claims 7 and 8 valid, hut not infringed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. In this suit for infringement of claims 2 to 8. inclusive, of patent No. 650,-771, issued on May 29, 1900, to appellants as assignees of George 0. Avery, claims 2 to 6, inclusive, were held to be invalid, and claims 7 and 8 valid, hut not infringed. So far as the claims in suit are concerned, the specification describes the invention as follows: “It consists in a plow having a suitable sháre and mold-hoard. a standard carrying the same, an adjustable shoe or depth-runner, comprising divided runners…
1Opinion of the CourtBaker, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts). Without going over the details of construction exhibited in prior plows and patents, the state of the art when Aver)'- filed his application may be summarized thus: The middle-burster plow had been in use for more than 30 •years. Many inventors had directed their efforts to its improvement, particularly in the way of providing a runner or shoe to regulate the depth of the furrow, and a rudder to prevent veering. There were single runners and double runners, some sustained by rods depending from the moldboards, others by rods from other parts of the plow-structure,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- MacHine Co. v. MurphySupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Adam v. FolgerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1903
- King Ax Co. v. HubbardCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1899
- Cazier v. Mackie-Lovejoy Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1905
- Lamson Consol. Stoke Service Co. v. HillmanCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1903
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- National Tube Co. v. MarkCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1914
- Harder v. United States Piling Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1908
- Knight Soda Fountain Co. v. Walrus Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1919