Boyd v. Cherry
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Iowa
In Equity. The complainant by his bill charges respondent with the infringement of a patent granted to William Cooley, and duly assigned to him. The said patent bears date February 20, 1877, and ⅛ “for an improvement in obtaining cream from milk.” It is described in the opinion. The defense is twofold: .(1) That Cooley was not the original and first discoverer of the process described in his patent; or, in other words, prior use by other persons.
Read the full summary
In Equity. The complainant by his bill charges respondent with the infringement of a patent granted to William Cooley, and duly assigned to him. The said patent bears date February 20, 1877, and ⅛ “for an improvement in obtaining cream from milk.” It is described in the opinion. The defense is twofold: .(1) That Cooley was not the original and first discoverer of the process described in his patent; or, in other words, prior use by other persons. (2) That, even if complainant’s patent is valid, defendant has not infringed. Proofs have been taken, and the case has been twice argued.
1Opinion of the Court
McCraRY, Circuit Judge.
As it is admitted that the respondent has manufactured and sold a milk can constructed according to the patent issued to him on the 23d of September, 1879, known as the “Hawkeye Patent,” our first inquiry will be as to whether this is an infringement of the earlier patent under which the complainant claims. An examination of the two patents will clearly show that they are substantially for the same invention. For convenience I will designate the older patent as the “Cooley Patent,” and the later one as the “Cherry Patent.” The Cooley patent is described as “ a new…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Cochrane v. DeenerSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Corning v. BurdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Wallace v. HolmesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut · 1871
- Rumford Chemical Works v. HeckerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1876
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Heaton-Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1896
- Metallizing Engineering Co. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- Acme Flexible Clasp Co. v. Cary Mfg. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1899
- Chisholm v. JohnsonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Delaware · 1901
- Knaust Bros. v. GoldschlagDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1939
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.