David E. Kennedy, Inc. v. Beaver Tile & Specialty Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
In Equity. Suit by David E. Kennedy, Incorporated, against the Beaver Tile & Specialty Company and Isaac R. Russell. On final hearing. This is the usual bill in equity for infringement of a patent to David E. Kennedy, No. 1,054,423, for a method of laying cork tiles in floors.
Read the full summary
In Equity. Suit by David E. Kennedy, Incorporated, against the Beaver Tile & Specialty Company and Isaac R. Russell. On final hearing. This is the usual bill in equity for infringement of a patent to David E. Kennedy, No. 1,054,423, for a method of laying cork tiles in floors. It is not necessary to go into the details of the patent, except to say that the method is to lay the floors in a plurality of hollow squares, so filling them in that the cork tile shall he laid under pi'essure in all directions. The corner tiles of the square are to be nailed down .at such distances apart that in…
1Opinion of the CourtEearned Hand, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The first question I shall take up is whether the claims of the patent are broader than the alleged invention, and therefore invalid. The objection is that the claims do not represent the real invention. The real invention is supposed to be for laying the floor in a plurality of *478relatively independent squares or sections. Claims 1, 2, and 3 certainly include such element, and claims 6 and 7, in my judgment, contain the same, although not so certainly. Claims 4 and 5 need not be considered under these circumstances.
[1] The next objection I shall consider is…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Cochrane v. DeenerSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Expanded Metal Co. v. BradfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
- George Frost Co. v. CohnCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1902
- Brown v. District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- George Frost Co. v. SamstagCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1910
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mills Alloys, Inc. v. Stoody Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938