Brooks v. Fiske
Supreme Court of the United States
(Mr. Justice Curtis did not sit in this cause, having been of counsel for the patentee.) This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts, sitting as a court of equity.
Read the full summary
(Mr. Justice Curtis did not sit in this cause, having been of counsel for the patentee.) This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts, sitting as a court of equity. The appellants were the owners of the Woodworth patent for a-planing machine, the documents respecting which are set forth in extenso, in the report of the case of Wilson v. Rousseau, 4 Howard, 646. They filed a bill against the appellees for an injunction to restrain them from using a certain planing machine, known as the Norctoss machine, upon the ground that it was an…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Catron
delivered, the opinion of the court.
The bill before ps was filed against - Fiske and Norcross by the -assignees of Woodworth’s patented machine for planing boards, and-of tonguing and grooving them.
It is alleged that a planing machine, patented to Norcross, and used by the defendants, was substantially in its combination, and in the result it produced, the same as that assigned to the complainants, for a district in which the defendant’s machine was used; that the complainant’s patent was the elder, and that the use of Norcross’s machine was an infringement of that invented by William…
2Cited by30 opinions
- Miller v. Eagle Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Autogiro Company of America v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1967
- General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Fur Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Reece Button-Hole Ma. Co. v. Globe Button-Hole Ma. Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1894
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.