Legal Opinion
Standard Automatic Mach. Co. v. Karl Kiefer Mach. Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided August 18, 1925PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KNOX, District Judge.
The above-entitled suits separately charge the defendant with the infringement of claims 20, 21, 23, 24, 29, 37, 38, 45, 47, 48, 51, 54, 56, and 60 of patent No. 1,416,345, for a vacuum filling machine, issued to plaintiff, as the assignee of A. J. Gosselin, upon May 16, 1922, and of claims 17 and 18 of patent No. 1,418,203, for a bottle filling machine, issued to Theodore E. Pennock, upon May 30, 1922, and now owned by Standard Automatic Machine Company. By stipulation between the parties, the suits were tried as one.
Tn addition to the usual defenses of invalidity of the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Gayler v. WilderSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Coffin v. OgdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Egbert v. LippmannSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Kendall v. WinsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1859
- Diamond Patent Co. v. S. E. Carr Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1914
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Piet v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1959
- Rown v. Brake Testing Equipment Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1930
- Connecticut Valley Enterprises, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1965
- Chemithon Corporation v. Procter & Gamble CompanyDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1968
- LD Schreiber Cheese Co., Inc. v. Clearfield Cheese Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1982
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.