Legal Opinion

Lyon, Inc. v. Clayton & Lambert Mfg. Co.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided March 16, 1937No. 6206PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

The two patents involved in this case were so thoroughly and satisfactorily discussed in the opinion of the trial judge, reported in (D.C.) 13 F.Supp. 331, that an additional opinion by this court affirming the decree below could be in substance only repetition.

The vital element which differentiated Lyon’s tire cover from the prior art was its resiliency, expansibility, and contractible power. These features enabled it to be expanded, snapped on the tire, and to hold itself in place, and this when inclosing^ different sizes of tires. These elements are not in the defendant’s box-like cover,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Lyon, Inc. v. Clayton & Lambert Mfg. Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1935

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Lyon, Inc. v. Clayton & Lambert Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1942
  2. Lyon, Inc. v. Clayton & Lambert Mfg. Co.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1940

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

Powered by the Exa API