Legal Opinion
Micromatic Hone Corp. v. Mid-West Abrasive Co.
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided June 10, 1948No. 6857PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PICARD, District Judge.
Action on claimed infringement of a patent, and to enjoin, defendant contending that claim (1) of patent is invalid; that defendant has not infringed; and charging an attempt to create a monopoly.
The Facts
Plaintiff is the owner of Calvert patent No. 1,908,218 for an “abrasive stone holder” and also owns the Jeschke abrasive stone holder patent No. 1,821,518. Claim (1) of the Calvert patent is the only claim in suit and is as follows:
“A honing element for a grinding tool including, an abrasive element and a metal backing member therefor having upstanding sides which are…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Carbice Corp. of America v. American Patents Development Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Wilson v. SimpsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
- Cotton-Tie Co. v. SimmonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Micromatic Hone Corp. v. Mid-West Abrasive Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1949
- Opinion No., Texas Attorney General Reports2003
- Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, Texas Attorney General Reports2003