Exer-Genie, Inc., and E. E. Holkesvick v. Alexander G. McDonald and Buddy Systems, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Ely, Circuit Judge, filed a dissenting opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
BROWNING, Circuit Judge:
This is an appeal from a decision of the district court holding claims 8, 9, and 10 of plaintiffs’ Patent No. 3,197,204 valid and infringed. We conclude that these claims of the patent are invalid, and reverse.
I
The patented device, as defined by the claims in suit, consists of (1) a shaft with a hub at each end and two passageways in each hub; (2) a length of rope extending through one passageway in one hub, at least partially around the shaft, through the passageways in the other hub, again at least partially around the shaft, and then through the other passageway in…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Miller v. Eagle Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Brown v. PiperSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Buddy Systems, Inc., a California Corporation v. Exer-Genie, Inc., a Corporation, and E. E. HolkesvickCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976
- Saf-Gard Products, Inc. v. Service Parts, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976
- Hewlett-Packard Company v. Tel-Design, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1972
- Tveter v. AB Turn-O-MaticCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
- Alcor Aviation, Inc. v. Radair Incorporated, a Corporation, Successor to Radair, Inc., and Uniwest, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.