Legal Opinion
Peerless Roll Leaf Co. v. H. Griffin & Sons Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided December 3, 1928No. 29PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtL. Hand, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The most important issue, as we see it, is that of the public use by the plaintiff (for all the companies are to be taken as one for this purpose) before March 31, 1922. The machines then used were, we think, complete embodiments of the claims in suit. That question turns upon what is meant by the phrase, in claims 19 and 20, “ratchet means respectively for said plurality of feeding means.” If this means the gear and rack, 29, 33, of the patent in suit, the three machines did not embody it, because they had a separate rack and gear for each feed roll, and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Elizabeth v. Pavement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Egbert v. LippmannSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Smith & Griggs Manufacturing Co. v. SpragueSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Hall v. MacNealeSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Brush v. ConditSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Metallizing Engineering Co. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- Gillman v. SternCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1940
- Bourns, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1976
- Thompson v. American Tobacco Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1949
- U. S. Chemical Corporation and U. S. Plastic Products Corporation v. Plastic Glass CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1957
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.