Parker Rust Proof Co. v. Ford Motor Co.
District Court, E.D. Michigan
1Opinion of the Court
TUTTLE, District Judge.
This is an infringement suit, based on letters patent No. 870,937, granted November 12, 1907, to J. W. Coslett, for improvements relating to tbe treatment of iron or steel for preventing rusting, and is before this court on exceptions to tbe master’s report on tbe subject of damages and profits. Claims 3 to 6, inclusive,, of this patent, were before tbe court, and-.. were found valid and infringed by the ravenizing process employed by the defendant and by the sale of its ravenized products. 6 F(2d) 649. This word “ravenized,” is here employed to designate the specific…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Condit Electrical Mfg. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1908
- Muther v. United Shoe MacHinery Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1927
3Cited by22 opinions
- Cordeco Development Corporation v. Antonio Santiago Vasquez, Cordeco Development Corporation v. Antonio Santiago Vasquez, Inez Acevedo CamposCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1976
- Smith v. Dental Products Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1944
- General Motors Corp. v. Cadillac Marine & Boat Co.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 1964
- Hope Basket Co. v. Product Advancement Corp.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 1952
- International Nickel Company v. Ford Motor CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1958
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.