Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Pope
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 in equity by William C. Pope against the Cincinnati Traction Company. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the Court
KNAPPEN, Circuit Judge.
This is a suit for the infringement of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8 of United States patent to Pope, No. 805,153, 'November 21, 1905. The defenses are: (a) Nonpatentable subject-matter; (b) anticipation; (c) lack of invention; and (d) noninfringement. The district. court held the patent valid and infringed, and, made the usual decree for injunction and accounting, from which this appeal is taken.
1. Is the subject-matter patentable? The invention relates particularly to “time limit” transfer tickets for use by street railways, traction' companies, etc. The stated objects of…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Diamond Rubber Co. of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- McClain v. OrtmayerSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Potts v. CreagerSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Hobbs v. BeachSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Proudfit Loose Leaf Co. v. Kalamazoo Loose Leaf Binder Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1915
- Ohmer Fare Register Co. v. OhmerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1916
- Guthrie v. CurlettCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926
- In Re SterlingCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1934
- Application of Edward M. JonesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.