Legal Opinion
Block v. Nathan Anklet Support Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided June 16, 1925No. 371PublishedCited by 33 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHand, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
On the issue, of infringement we think there should be no doubt. A reversal end for end is as readily accomplished by revolving the pad on a diameter through an angle of 180° ás by rotating it in its own plane to a similar extent. Owing to the form of the defendant’s pad, a ludette or segment, it was necessary to do this to effect the result of the patent; but, even were the specifications more expressly limited than they are, we should regard it as an equivalent of the patent. If the patent is to have any value whatever, it ought not to be possible to evade…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Coffin v. OgdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Buser v. Novelty Tufting Machine Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1907
- United Shirt & Collar Co. v. BeattieCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1906
- Stitt v. Eastern R. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1884
- Imperial Brass Mfg. Co. v. NelsonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1913
3Cited by33 opinions
- Devex Corporation v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1963
- Gordon Form Lathe Co. v. Walcott MacH. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1929
- Stearns v. Tinker & RasorCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1955
- Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company v. Midwestern Instruments, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1962
- Stelos Co. v. Hosiery Motor-Mend CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.