Legal Opinion
Smith v. Thompson
District Court, S.D. California
Decided July 25, 1941No. 1364-BHPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HARRISON, District Judge.
In this case, I have arrived at the following conclusions:
Patent No. 1,997,889 is invalid. Primarily the basis of this patent is mere substitution of materials. However, I am basing my concliisions principally on the fact that I feel no invention is involved. In view of the prior art, I feel that any advancement made by the paintiff was the re-suit of mechanical skill, that is, the exercise of the skill of the art.
The file wrapper reflects that this patent, has had a tempestuous voyage through the Patent Office, and my conclusions are in accord with the original…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Atlantic Works v. BradySupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Nutt v. National Institute Incorporated for the Improvement of MemoryCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1929
- Ansehl v. Puritan Pharmaceutical Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1932
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Farmland Irrigation Co. v. DopplmaierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Continental Casualty Company v. BeardsleyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1957
- Liquidometer Corp. v. Capital Airlines, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1959
- Charles Miner v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of WisconsinCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1956