Ohio Rake Co. v. Bucher & Gibbs Plow Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio; Howard C. Hollister, Judge. Suit by the Bucher & Gibbs Plow Company against the Ohio Rake Company. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the Court
KNAPPEN, Circuit Judge.
Suit for infringement of reissued patent No. 13,163, November 1, 1910, to Niesz. The device of this patent is a four-gang disk harrow; that is, one consisting of two sets, a front and a rear, each carrying two gangs of oppositely facing con-cavo-convex disks, the gangs of each set being adjusted angularly to each other. In the front set the disks face outwardly, the angle of the gangs extending reanvardly, thus making what is called, an “out-throw” harrow. In the rear set the disks face inwardly, the angle of the two gangs extends forwardly, thus making an “in-throw”…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Proudfit Loose Leaf Co. v. Kalamazoo Loose Leaf Binder Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1915
- Ferro Concrete Const. Co. v. Concrete Steel Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1913
- Munising Paper Co. v. American Sulphite Pulp Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1915
- International Mausoleum Co. v. SievertCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1914
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Michigan Carton Co. v. Sutherland Paper Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1928
- Dunham Co. v. CobbCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1927
- Kendall v. Trico Products Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1929
- Metropolitan Device Corp. v. Williamsburg Electric Supply Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1927
- Sparton Corporation, and Cross-Appellee v. Evans Products Co., and Cross-Appellant. (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1961
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.