Legal Opinion

Gould v. Cincinnati Shaper Co.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided January 3, 1912No. 2,150PublishedCited by 12 opinions

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio. Suit in equity by Gould & Eberhardt against the Cincinnati Shaper Company. Decree for defendant, and complainants appeal. Following is the opinion oí the Circuit Court by Sater, District Judge: The bill charges the infringement of patent No. 541,476, granted lime 25, I8ÍJ5, to the complainant's assignors.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio. Suit in equity by Gould & Eberhardt against the Cincinnati Shaper Company. Decree for defendant, and complainants appeal. Following is the opinion oí the Circuit Court by Sater, District Judge: The bill charges the infringement of patent No. 541,476, granted lime 25, I8ÍJ5, to the complainant's assignors. The patent issued for certain new and useful improvements in crank planers, known also as “shaping machines.” The specification recites among other things, that “the present invention relates * * * to a…

1Opinion of the Court

KNAPPEN, Circuit Judge.

This is a suit for infringement of United States patent No. 541,475 to Eberhardt, June 25, 1895, for improvements in crank planers. In the Circuit Court the claim involved was held invalid for lack of invention, and the bill dismissed. In crank planers or shapers, of the type to which the improvements in question pertain, the metal to be planed is held by a vise supported on a heavy metal table on a plane slightly below that of the cutting tool, which is carried across the surface of the work by a power-propelled reciprocating ram. To enable the tool to make successive…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Herman v. Youngstown Car Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1911
  2. Standard Caster & Wheel Co. v. Caster Socket Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1901
  3. National Tube Co. v. AikenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1908

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Proudfit Loose Leaf Co. v. Kalamazoo Loose Leaf Binder Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1915
  2. Cincinnati Traction Co. v. PopeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1913
  3. Ulmer v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1915
  4. Wagenhorst v. Hydraulic Steel Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1928
  5. Wagner v. Meccano Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1917

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API