Legal Opinion
Johnson Co. v. Philad Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 4, 1938No. 8613PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WILBUR, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from an interlocutory decree holding claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of reissue patent No. 18,841 granted Josef Mayer May 30, 1933, for a hair waving method, valid and infringed. This is the second reissue. The original patent, No. 1,622,957, was granted March 29, 1927. The patent was first reissued August 6, 1929, No. 17,-393. Claim 2 was allowed in the original patent, No. 1,622,957. Claims 3, 4, and 5 of patent No. 18,841 were claims 8, 9, and 10 of reissue patent No. 17,393. Claim 6 first appeared in the second reissue.
Appellant’s contentions are, briefly,…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Carbice Corp. of America v. American Patents Development Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Deering v. Winona Harvester WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Mahn v. HarwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Leitch Manufacturing Co. v. Barber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Pointer v. Six Wheel CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1949
- Stearns v. Tinker & RasorCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1955
- B. B. Chemical Co. v. EllisCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1941
- National Hairdressers' & Cosmetologists' Ass'n v. Philad Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1941
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.