American Can Co. v. Hickmott Asparagus Canning Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Appeal from the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of California. The appellant, as the owner of certain patents, brought its suit against the appellees for infringement.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of California. The appellant, as the owner of certain patents, brought its suit against the appellees for infringement. The patents are: (1) No. 436,792, issued September 23, 1890, to Peter Jordan for a can-body making machine; (2) No. 365,316, issued June 21, 1887, to Edwin Norton, for a can-cap soldering machine ; (3) No. 598,567, issued February 8, 1898, to E. P. Holden and C. M. Brown for a can-body machine. These patents all relate to machines for manufacturing tin can-bodies. The Jordan patent 'relates more…
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
• The broadest claim of the Jordan patent is claim 69. It reads as follows:
“The combination with a rotatable horn furnished with means for clamping the edge or end of the sheet thereto, of a device for holding the opposite edge or end of the sheet against the horn, and means for interlocking the hooks •on the blank, substantially as specified.”
In his specifications Jordan said:
“In the drawings I have shown that form of edge-folding or hook-making mechanisms, horn-bumping or seam-squeezing device, and blank-feed device which I prefer to use and to combine together for practicing my invention;…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Miller v. Eagle Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
- McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. C. Aultman & Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1895
- Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. National Car-Brake Shoe Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Penfield v. Chambers Bros. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1899
- Muller v. Lodge & Davis Machine Tool Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1896
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- National Tube Co. v. MarkCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1914
- R. M. Hollingshead Co. v. Bassick Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1934
- Stebler v. Riverside Heights Orange Growers' Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1913
- Simplex Window Co. v. Hauser Reversible Window Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1918
- O'Connor v. Consolidated Mortgage & Investment Corp.Superior Court of Rhode Island · 1931