Norton v. Eagle Automatic Can Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California
In Equity. Proceeding to punisli defendant for contempt in violating an injunction issued in the suit of Edward Horton and Oliver W. Horton against the Eagle Automatic Can Company for infringement of letters patent Ho. 267,014, issued Hovember 7, 1882, to Edwin Horton, for a can-heading machine. Defendant adjudged guilty.
1Opinion of the Court
McKENNA, Circuit Judge,
(orally.) The plaintiffs’ patent is for[ applying, automatically and exteriorly, can heads to can bodies.1 It whs construed in Norton v. Jensen, 1 C. C. A. 452, 49 Fed. 859, very broadly, and held of a primary character; “standing,” to quote the court, “at the head of the art, as the first machine ever in-’ vented for applying tight exterior fitting can heads to can bodies automatically, and appellees are entitled to a broad and liberal construction of the claims of tbeir patent.”
The order of injunction was for the defendant, its agents and servants, to “absolutely…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Corning v. BurdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Norton v. JensenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1892
- Blanchard v. PutnamSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Onderdonk v. FanningU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York · 1880
- Burden v. CorningU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1864
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Electric Candy Machine Co. v. MorrisU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1905
- Ransome v. HyattCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1895
- Kalamazoo Loose-Leaf Binder Co. v. Proudfit Loose-Leaf Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1917
- Einson-Freeman Co. v. BohnigDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1930
- Paxton v. BrintonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1903