Philadelphia Rubber Works Co. v. Portage Rubber Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Appeal from fhe District Court of the United States for the Eastern 'Division of the Northern District of Ohio; John H. Clarke, Judge. Suit in equity by the Philadelphia Rubber Works Company against the Portage Rubber Company. Decree for defendant, and complainant appeals.
1Per curiam
This is an appeal from a decree adjudging a patent to be void for want of invention. The patent in suit, No. 635,141, was issued to Arthur H. Marks October 17, 1899, for a “process of reclaiming rubber from vulcanized rubber waste,” and, through mesne conveyances, was on May 11, 1911, assigned to appellant. The bill of complaint is in the usual form, and was filed April 13, 1912; but, the patent having since expired, the only relief open to the appellant is admittedly an accounting. The answer denies both novelty and infringement, and avers that the specification was “made to contain less…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Fur Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Eames v. AndrewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Royer v. CoupeSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Briggs v. United Shoe MacHinery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Celite Corporation v. Dicalite Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938
- United States Rubber Co. v. General Tire & Rubber Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1942
- Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.District Court, S.D. California · 1955
- Buckeye Incubator Co. v. BlumDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1927
- Craftint Mfg. Co. v. BakerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.