Legal Opinion
Merco Nordstrom Valve Co. v. W. M. Acker Organization, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided October 10, 1942No. 8997PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HICKS, Circuit Judge.
Suit by appellant for infringement of Claims 6, 7 and 8 of Reissue Patent No. 17,375, herein called No. 75, July 16, 1929, to Nordstrom for a “Valve”; and of Claims 13 and 14 of Patent No. 2,012,578, herein called No. 78, August 27, 1935, also to Nordstrom for a “Valve.” The defenses were invalidity and noninfringement.
In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court limited the claims substantially to the disclosures of the patent, and held that so limited, they were valid but uninfringed. It thereupon dismissed the bill by a short, general decree. Plaintiff…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Langnes v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1908
- IVES v. HamiltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Stelos Co. v. Hosiery Motor-Mend Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Mills Novelty Co. v. Monarch Tool & Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1931
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- The Maytag Company, a Corporation v. The Murray Corporation of America, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1963
- Campbell v. MuellerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1947
- The Guiberson Corporation, and Cross-Appellee v. Equipment Engineers, Inc., and Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1958
- Mueller v. CampbellDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1945
- James A. Bede and Bede Products Corporation v. Baker & English, Inc., Spee-Flo Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1960
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.