Penfield v. C. & A. Potts & Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. This is a bill to restrain infringement of letters patent No. 332,393, granted 0. and A. Potts, July 14, 1885, and letters patent, No. 369,898, granted to same parties August 23, 1897. Both patents are for improvements in clay disintegrators.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. This is a bill to restrain infringement of letters patent No. 332,393, granted 0. and A. Potts, July 14, 1885, and letters patent, No. 369,898, granted to same parties August 23, 1897. Both patents are for improvements in clay disintegrators. The specifications of patent No. 322,393, so far as deemed useful to a consideration of the questions to be decided, are as follows: “Our invention relates to an improved machine for finely dividing and tempering clay. “The object of our improvement is to disintegrate…
1Opinion of the CourtLurton, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The validity of the sixth claim of the first Potts patent was adjudged in Potts v. Creager, 155 U. S. 597, 15 Sup. Ct. 194, 39 L. Ed. 275. In the opinion of that court the validity of the second Potts patent was doubted, though the point was not decided, Justice Brown saying:
“It is at least open to doubt whether, in view of the first patent, there is any novelty in substituting a smooth faced roller for the swinging plate of the first patent.”
*478Subsequently, upon newly discovered evidence, the decree sustaining the patent was set aside, and both patents held…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Southern Pacific Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Potts v. CreagerSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Garretson v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- McCarty v. Lehigh Valley RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Crosby Steam Gage & Valve Co. v. Consolidated Safety Valve Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Bluefields S. S. Co. v. United Fruit Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1917
- American Home Products Corp., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Lockwood Manufacturing Co., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1973
- Cold Metal Process Co. v. Republic Steel Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1956
- Baird v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- S. S. Kresge Co. v. Winget Kickernick Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1938
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.