Legal Opinion
Protector Last Re-Enforcing Co. v. John Pell & Son, Inc.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided April 5, 1913PublishedCited by 3 opinions
In Equity. Suit by the Protector East Re-enforcing Company against John Pell & Son, Incorporated. On final hearing.
1Opinion of the Court
CROSS, District Judge.
The bill of complaint alleges that patent No. 870,760 for a re-enforced last, for boots and shoes, issued November 12, 1907, to Winthrop B. Baker, assignor to the complainant, and which is owned by it, is valid and has been infringed by the defendant. The bill prays for the customary relief. The defendant denies the validity of the patent, but asserts that if it is mistaken in that respect it nevertheless has not infringed it.
[ 1 ] The patent contains three claims, all of which are in issue; they are as follows:
“1. A wooden last for boots or shoes provided with a recess…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hicks v. KelseySupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- George Frost Co. v. CohnCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1902
- King v. AndersonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1898
- Hogan v. Westmoreland Specialty Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1908
- George Frost Co. v. SamstagCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1910
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Henry J. Kaiser Company v. McLouth Steel Corp.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1966
- Individual Drinking Cup Co. v. United States Drinking Cup Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1914
- John Pell & Son, Inc. v. Protector Last Reinforcing Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1914