Legal Opinion
Buckeye Incubator Co. v. Blum
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided February 14, 1927PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WESTENHAVER, District Judge.
This suit again brings before me for consideration United States letters patent 1,262,860, issued April 16, 1918, to Samuel B. Smith. Infringement is charged of claims 1 and 2 only. Although invalidity is again urged, the defense mainly relied on is noninfringement. In Buckeye Incubator Co. v. Wolf (D. C.) 291 F. 253, this patent was fully examined, and all of its claims were held valid. Upon appeal the decree was affirmed. Wolf v. Buckeye Incubator Co. (6 C. C. A.) 296 F. 680. Since then this patent has been involved in no less than 25 lawsuits, of which some 14…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Topliff v. TopliffSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Royer v. CoupeSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Buckeye Incubator Co. v. WolfDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1923
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Dominion Magnesium Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1963
- In Re AckenbachCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930
- Miller Hatcheries, Inc. v. Buckeye Incubator Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1930
- Buckeye Incubator Co. v. HillpotCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1928
- Bauer Bros. Co. v. Bogalusa Paper Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1938
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.