Legal Opinion

Putman v. Beaver State Shingle Co.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided December 22, 1930No. 6197PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.

This was a suit for infringement of letters patent for an imitation shake shingle, which is adequately described in the first claim of the patent, reading as follows:

“A tapered shingle having a plane back and a face plane towards the upper or thin *354edge of the shingle and fluted in smoothly curved waves throughout the exposed area toward the thick edge, whereby the thicker portions, when laid as a roof or wall, will simulate shake shingling and the thinner portions will insure airtightness.”

The object of the patent is to give the shingle, when laid, the appearance of a…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Collar Co. v. Van DusenSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
  2. Harmon Paper Co. v. PragerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923
  3. Scott & Williams, Inc. v. Aristo Hosiery Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1925
  4. Simplex Lithograph Co. v. Renfrew Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1918
  5. Union Paper-Collar Co. v. Van DeusenU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1872

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Cox v. DohertyDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1942
  2. Fitite Cedar Shake Co. v. C. B. Shingle Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938

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

Powered by the Exa API