Legal Opinion
Willamette-Hyster Co. v. Pacific Car & Foundry Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided July 28, 1941No. 9653PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WILBUR, Circuit Judge.
The five patents involved in this litigation all relate to a device which the appellant characterizes as a “tractor-and-fair-lead-trailer equipment”, which may be more properly characterized as a portable jib crane.1
The plaintiff, Willamette-Hyster Company, appellant, and the defendant, Pacific Car and Foundry Company, appellee, are both manufacturers of such cranes for use in the logging industry. The cranes now manufactured by each company are substantially identical. Each claims that the crane of the other infringes its patents in suit. While the alleged infringing…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Elizabeth v. Pavement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Atlantic Works v. BradySupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Electrical Fittings Corp. v. ThomasSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- McCullough Tool Co. v. Well Surveys, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1965
- Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp. v. Tatnall Measuring Systems Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1958
- Micro-Magnetic Industries, Inc., a Corporation v. Advance Automatic Sales Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1973
- McCullough Tool Company, Robert W. Pringle, Kenneth I. Roulston, George M. Brownell and Philip W. Martin v. Well Surveys, Inc., and Dresser Industries, Inc., a Corporation, McCullough Tool Company v. Well Surveys, Inc., Well Surveys, Inc., and Dresser Industries, Inc. v. McCullough Tool Company, Robert W. Pringle, Kenneth I. Roulston, George M. Brownell and Philip W. Martin, (Two Cases). Well Surveys, Inc. v. McCullough Tool CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1965