Aurora Mantle & Lamp Co. v. Kaufmann
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois. Suit in equity by Otto Kaufmann, receiver for the Block Light Company of Ohio, against the Aurora Mantle & Lamp Company. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals. From a decree sustaining two patents, No. 940,639, issued November 16, 1909, and No. 975,769, issued November 15, 1910, and enjoining further infringement, appellant appeals.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois. Suit in equity by Otto Kaufmann, receiver for the Block Light Company of Ohio, against the Aurora Mantle & Lamp Company. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals. From a decree sustaining two patents, No. 940,639, issued November 16, 1909, and No. 975,769, issued November 15, 1910, and enjoining further infringement, appellant appeals. The defenses are invalidity and noninfringement. The two patents cover an incandescent gas mantle and the process of making it. The…
1Opinion of the CourtEvans, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Appellant’s attack upon the validity of the product patent may be divided into the following heads: (A) Patentee’s product was merely the application of practical mechanics and did not involve invention. (B) The steps applied were taken from the prior art. (C) Patentee’s product is the result of actual aggregation of a number of old steps.
[1] It is urged that the.securing of shape and permanency of form by the means adopted by appellee was long known to the art and had previously been covered by patents. For example, caps, mittens, hats, boots, and…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking MacHine Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Western Electric Co. v. LaRueSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- United States Ex Rel. Steinmetz v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Gandy v. Main Belting Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1892
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- In Re CadyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1935
- One-Piece Bifocal Lens Co. v. Bisight Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1917
- Fulton Co. v. Janesville Laboratories, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1927
- Victory Belt Co. v. Marshall Field & Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1924
- Sampson v. SilvermanDistrict Court, D. Rhode Island · 1921
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.