Legal Opinion
Concrete Appliances Co. v. Gomery
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided November 23, 1925No. 44PublishedCited by 137 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Stone
In an earlier suit petitioners sought to enjoin an infringement of the Callahan patent, No. 948,719, and the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held the patent valid. Concrete Appliance Co. v. Meinken, 262 Fed. 958. Later the present suit was brought in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to enjoin an infringement of the same patent by the respondents. The District Court expressed the opinion that the claims of. the patent did not involve invention, but in deference to the determination in the Sixth Circuit, dismissed the petitioners’ bill on the ground of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Atlantic Works v. BradySupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Thomson Spot Welder Co. v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- King v. GallunSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Concrete Appliances Co. v. MeinkenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1920
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by137 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. WintersSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Permutit Co. v. Graver Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
132 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.