Legal Opinion
Hildreth v. Lauer & Suter Co.
District Court, D. Maryland
Decided May 5, 1913PublishedCited by 8 opinions
In Equity. Suit by Herbert E. Hildreth against the Eauer & Suter Company. On final hearing.
1Opinion of the Court
ROSE, District Judge.
The defendant is a manufacturer of candy. It owns and uses a candy-pulling machine. Plaintiff says that such machine infringes claim 4 of his letters patent No. 832,384, October .2, 1906. That claim is for:
“A candy-pulling machine comprising means for supporting the candy against gravity, means for pulling the candy, and means for producing a relative in-and-out motion of said supporting and pulling means.”
Construed literally, this claim covers every candy-pulling machine in which the candy is pulled while supported against gravity, and in which there is a relative…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Hobbs v. BeachSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
3Cited by8 opinions
- Aluminum Co. of America v. Thompson Products, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1938
- F. N. Burt Co. v. W. C. Ritchie & Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1918
- Hildreth v. AuerbachDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1914
- Hildreth v. Lauer & Suter Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1913
- Kendall Co. v. Tetley Tea Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1950
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.