Legal Opinion

Hildreth v. Mastoras

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided November 7, 1921No. 51PublishedCited by 125 opinions

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRQUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR-THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Certiorari to review a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals in a suit brought by the present petitioner to enjoin an infringement of his patent. The District Court granted the injunction, 253 Fed. 68; but it was reversed by the court below, 263 Fed. 571.

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Taft

delivered'the opinion of the court.

This is a certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit bringing here for review a decree of that court, reversing one of the District Court of Oregon.' granting an injunction against infringement of a patent for a candy pulling machine. The patent, No. 831,501, was issued to Hildreth as assignee by mesne assignments of Dickinson. Mastoras, the defendant in the District Court, made and used a candy pulling machine, under a later patent of Langer. The Circuit Court of Appeals held the claim of the Dickinson patent sued on to be so limited…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1908
  2. Miller v. Eagle Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
  3. Dolbear v. American Bell Telephone CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  4. Morley Sewing MacHine Co. v. LancasterSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  5. Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. Press Pub. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1893

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

3Cited by125 opinions

  1. Hoeltke v. C. M. Kemp Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1936
  2. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company v. Berkley and Company, Inc., E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company v. Berkley and Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1980
  3. Williams Manufacturing Co. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
  4. Karl Ziegler, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Phillips Petroleum Company, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1973
  5. National Recovery Technologies, Inc. v. Magnetic Separation Systems, Inc. And Garry R. KennyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999

120 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