Legal Opinion · Dissent

C. O. Tingley & Co. v. Badger Rubber Works

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Decided May 24, 1928No. 4005Published

1DissentEvans, Circuit Judge

This court said, in Damrow Bros. Co. v. Stoelting Bros. Co. (C. C. A.) 295 F. 492:

“While a patent carries with it a prima facie presumption of validity, yet that presumption does not hold if the patent is found to be invalid upon its face.”

In support of this statement, Richards v. Chase Elevator Co., 158 U. S. 299, 301, 15 S. Ct. 831 (39 L. Ed. 991), Sodemann Heat & Power Co. v. Kauffman (C. C. A.) 275 F. 593, 595, and De Vry Corporation v. Acme Motion Picture Projector Co. (C. C. A.) 262 F. 970, are cited. In the last-cited case, other authorities may be found supporting this position.

It…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Richards v. Chase Elevator Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. Sodemann Heat & Power Co. v. KauffmanCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1921
  3. De Vry Corp. v. Acme Motion Picture Projector Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1920
  4. Damrow Bros. Co. v. Stoelting Bros. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1924

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

Powered by the Exa API