Legal Opinion
Concrete Appliances Co. v. Gomery
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided June 13, 1922No. 2067PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DICKINSON, District Judge.
This cause concerns letters patent No. 948,719, applied for January 21, 1909, and issued February 8, 1910, to Lee Callahan, for an apparatus for hoisting and distributing concrete.
One defense is the absence of invention. Whenever the patented thing is a construction the question often arises of whether it is the product of invention or merely of constructive skill. How near this border line the subject-matter of this patent is its juridical experience shows. One court before which the patent has been was not able to find invention; the other found it.
The patented…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. C. Aultman & Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1895
- Concrete Appliances Co. v. MeinkenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1920
- International Mfg. Co. v. H. F. Brammer Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1905
- Capital Cash-Register Co. v. National Cash Register Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1895
3Cited by4 opinions
- Concrete Appliances Co. v. GomerySupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Waterbury Buckle Co. v. G. E. Prentice Mfg. Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1923
- Rathbun v. Wolverine Metal Specialties Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1927
- Tipp Fireworks Co. v. Victory Sparkler & Specialty Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1932