Legal Opinion
Reynolds Spring Co. v. L. A. Young Industries, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided December 3, 1929No. Nos. 5215, 5216PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HICKENLOOPER, Circuit Judge.
Three patents are involved in the present appeal and cross-appeal. Patent No. 1,058,-285, issued to L. A. Young, April 8, 1913, covers the use of the S type of base frame,, or marginal strip on the base frame, in spring-upholstery constructions such as seats for automobiles. Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 are in suit and were held valid and infringed. Patent No. 1,428,701, issued to Otto A. Miehelis, September 12, 1922, claims in combination-with such spring structures a tie loop, having-arms terminating in hooks with relatively short bills, the bight of one hook…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Concrete Appliances Co. v. GomerySupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Gordon Form Lathe Co. v. Walcott MacH. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1929
- National Malleable Castings Co. v. Buckeye, Malleable Iron & Coupler Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1909
- Farrington v. HaywoodCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1929
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Directoplate Corp. v. Donaldson Lithographing Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1931
- Reynolds Spring Co. v. L. A. Young Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1939
- Nestle-Le Mur Co. v. Eugene, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1932
- Newcomb, David Co. v. R. C. Mahon Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1932
- Mills Novelty Co. v. Monarch Tool & Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1935
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.