Legal Opinion

Watson v. Stevens

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Decided September 6, 1892PublishedCited by 27 opinions

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. In Equity. Bill by Jeremiah M. Watson against George Ii. Stevens and others for infringement of letters patent No. 367,484, issued August 2, 1887, to the complainant for the “method” of, and apparatus for, compressing shank stiffeners.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. In Equity. Bill by Jeremiah M. Watson against George Ii. Stevens and others for infringement of letters patent No. 367,484, issued August 2, 1887, to the complainant for the “method” of, and apparatus for, compressing shank stiffeners. The circuit held that the alleged invention consisted only of the mechanical adaptation of well-known machines and processes to a new use, and dismissed the bill. 47 Fed. Rep. 117. Complainant appeals. In his specifications the patentee makes the following statements: “Shank…

1Opinion of the Court

Putnam, Circuit Judge.

This suit relates to the first and sixth claims of complainant’s patent. . The first is for a combination constituting a machine for compressing shank stiffeners, and the other is for the “method” of that machine. Two defenses are set up,—anticipation by certain patents put in evidence, and lack of invention.

None of the devices in use for forming shank stiffeners, shown in the case, anticipated the complainant’s invention. This is plainly apparent as to all, unless it be the calendering process machine originating with the American Shoe Shank Company, the Bla,ke or Tripp…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. The Barbed Wire PatentSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
  3. McClain v. OrtmayerSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  4. Topliff v. TopliffSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  5. Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1877

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Stanley Instrument Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1904
  2. Meccano, Ltd. v. WagnerDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1916
  3. Consolidated Electric Manuf'g Co. v. HoltzerCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1895
  4. Forsyth v. GarlockCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1905
  5. Heap v. Tremont & Suffolk MillsCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1897

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API