Legal Opinion
Cincinnati Milling MacHine Co. v. Turchan
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided November 24, 1953No. 11716_1PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SIMONS Chief Judge
The present patent infringement suit, as now narrowed by the appeal, involves solely an issue of infringement, There was no adjudication of validity in the court below and the patent having now expired the public interest does not invite a consideration of that issue., , . ., . , , , The patent m suit is Anderson No. 1,- '% , ,. .... 952,230 for an automatic profile milling ’ , , machine, granted on March 27 1934 upon an application filed in 1927 and renewed m 1931. Of its seventy-four , , claims but three are now pressed as havmg been infringed. These_ claims are i3, 46 and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- D'Arcy Spring Co. v. Marshall Ventilated Mattress Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1919
- Davis Sewing Mach. Co. v. New Departure Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1914
- Schumacher v. CornellSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- R. M. Hollingshead Co. v. Bassick Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1934
- Dillon Pulley Co. v. McEachranCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1934
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Graphicana Corporation v. Baia CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1973
- Turchan v. Cincinnati Milling MacHine Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1953
- Tillotson Manufacturing Co. v. Textron, Inc., HomeliteCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1964
- Nelmor Corp. v. Jervis Corp.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1964
- Transco Products Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1993
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.