Legal Opinion

Drumhead Co. of America v. Hammond

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided June 1, 1936No. 3164PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McVICAR, District Judge.

Defendant contends that the patent in suit is invalid for the reason that it lacks invention. Drumheads, prior to the invention of the patent in suit, required frequent adjustment by reason of moisture and changes in temperature. The patent in suit overcomes this objection by the use of a fabric drumhead, the fabric being painted with a solution of a cellulose derivative and a plasticizer. Drumheads made in accordance with the patent in suit have gone into commercial use. The elements of the drumheads of the patent in suit are old. The combination of the elements is…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
  2. Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
  3. National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1901
  4. Hobbs v. BeachSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
  5. Sessions v. RomadkaSupreme Court of the United States · 1892

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. The UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS FOUND. v. Block Drug Co.District Court, E.D. Illinois · 1955
  2. Hadco Products, Inc. v. Lighting Corp. of America, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1970
  3. Schmidinger v. WelshDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1965
  4. Metals Disintegrating Co. v. Reynolds Metals Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1955
  5. Federal Machine & Welder Co. v. Mesta Machine Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1939

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

Powered by the Exa API