Legal Opinion

Super Mold Corp. v. Bacon

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided September 12, 1942No. Na. 9981PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

WILBUR, Circuit Judge.

Complaint and cross-complaint for infringement of patents for tire retread devices. Relief was denied both parties, and both appeal.

Plaintiff, Super Mold Corporation of California, sued for infringement, of claims *8611, 5, 6, 7 and 13 of Smith patent No. 1,662,-035, issued March 6, 1928. This patent we held valid in Goodman v. Super Mold Corp., 9 Cir., 103 F.2d 474, rehearing denied 109 F.2d 442. It is for the combination with a retread device, of rings to press against the sides of the tire to force the tread against the matrix, both by “toggle action” of the tire side…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Stilz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  2. Goodman v. Super Mold Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1939
  3. Goodman v. Super Mold Corp. of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1940

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. United States v. 62 PACKAGES, ETC.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1944

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

Powered by the Exa API