Legal Opinion
Nachman Spring-Filled Corp. v. Spring Products Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided January 7, 1935No. 185PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MANTON, Circuit Judge.
Appellant heretofore had its patent, No. 1,411,227, for a spring cushion construction for mattress, adjudicated valid and infringed by the appellee’s product. Nachman Spring-Filled Corp. v. Spring Products Corporation (C. C. A.) 68 F.(2d) 829. After our mandate was passed down to the District Court, a master was appointed who undertook to determine the damages. At such hearing it developed that the appellee is now constructing a mattress differing from its previous infringing product. It is called “zigzag.” Claiming this to be but a colorable change, appellant moved for…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Combs v. HodgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1859
- Columbia Graphophone Co. v. Searchlight Horn Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1916
- Nachman Spring-Filled Corp. v. Spring Products Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
- Berry v. Littlefield, Alvord & Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1924
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Leonard v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
- Rice v. Glad Hands, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1985
- Carson Rice v. Glad Hands, Inc. And Allstate Insurance Company, Defendants-Third Party v. Robert Murray Collins and Phillip Alan Froude, Underwriters at Lloyd's, Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985