Legal Opinion
United Shoe MacHinery Corp. v. O'Donnell Rubber Products Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided June 4, 1936No. 6980PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SIMONS, Circuit Judge.
The patent in suit, McDonald 1,661,572, is in the art of folding sheet materials as practiced in the shoe manufacturing industry. In a suit for infringement the appellant, as owner of the patent, sought to hold the Irving Drew Company liable as a direct and the O’Donnell Rubber Products Company as a contributory infringer. The court below found none of the claims of the patent infringed, and so, without decision upon their validity, entered a decree dismissing the bill, from which the plaintiff appeals.
The folding of a margin or edge of sheet material is a common…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Hill v. WoosterSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- D'Arcy Spring Co. v. Marshall Ventilated Mattress Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1919
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States Rubber Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1935
- Reo Motor Car Co. v. Gear Grinding MacH. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1930
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Olympic Fastening Systems, Inc. v. Textron, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1974
- General Motors Corporation v. Swan Carburetor Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1937
- Sperry Products, Inc. v. Aluminum Company of AmericaDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1959
- Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Shakespeare Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1939
- City of Orange v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. Of MarylandCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1950
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.