Legal Opinion

Protex Signal Co. v. Feniger

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided February 8, 1926No. 4282PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Per curiam

It is unnecessary to discuss in detail the prior patent art. It is sufficient to say that a careful consideration of all of the prior patents relating particularly to “stop signals” introduced in evidence and the testimony in reference to a large number of others of the same character, not only compels the conclusion that none of them anticipate Kroehle, but also emphasizes the fact that many competitors were endeavoring, without success, to produce an automobile signal light that would operate as effectively in the daylight as in the night. The witness Bunyon, who as late as May 14, 1918,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Gorham Co. v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
  2. Lehnbeuter v. HolthausSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
  3. Ashley v. Weeks-Numan Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1915
  4. Imperial Glass Co. v. HeiseyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1923
  5. R. E. Dietz Co. v. Burr & Starkweather Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Schnading Corporation v. Gaines Manufacturing Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1974
  2. Forestek Plating & Mfg. Co. v. Knapp-Monarch Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1939
  3. American Fabrics Co. v. Richmond Lace WorksCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
  4. In Re HargravesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
  5. Bergstrom v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1980

8 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