Alexander Anderson, Inc. v. Eastman
District Court, S.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
McCORMICK, District Judge.
These are consolidated suits in equity for infringement of patents, No. 1,770,224, granted July 8, 1930, to Alexander Anderson, and No. 1,830,345, granted November 3, 1931, to the same patentee.
The main grounds of defense are: (1) Want of invention; (2) anticipation or lack of novelty; (3) no infringement.
Both patents are for “bore hole directional apparatus and methods of orientation,” and they describe and claim methods of orienting an instrument or a tool in a bore hole, and they also describe and claim apparatus used for carrying out the methods. The evidence…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Seymour v. OsborneSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Leeds & Catlin Company v. Victor Talking Machine Company (No. 2)Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Butte & Superior Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Naylor v. Alsop Process Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1909
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Kawneer Co. v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 1952
- TRW Environmental Safety Systems Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1989
- Beauchamp v. SchiresonDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1937
- Dowless v. HooksDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · 1954
- Barkeij v. Ford Motor Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1938