Edwin A. Kaakinen, and Kaakinen Fish Company v. The Peelers Company, a Partnership
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
WOLLENBERG, District Judge.
The District Court for the Western District of Washington, Southern Division, had jurisdiction over these patent claims under the patent laws of the United States (35 U.S.C. § 281). Jurisdiction of the District Court is founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a).
The controversy concerns a machine or picker designed to peel raw shrimp, 1. e., to divest edible meat of the head, shell, tail and other appendages. This peeling of the raw shrimp is a necessary step in the operation of a cannery where the ultimate aim is placing the shrimp meat, after blanching, in cans.
The canning of…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Dalehite v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Paramount Publix Corp. v. American Triergon Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Harry A. Pursche v. Atlas Scraper and Engineering Co., a Corporation, Atlas Scraper and Engineering Co., a Corporation v. Harry A. PurscheCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1962
- Hycon Manufacturing Company v. H. Koch & Sons, a Partnership Consisting of M. P. Koch, W. L. Koch, H. M. Koch and R. Koch AbelCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1955
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- John W. Bentley v. Sunset House Distributing Corp., Etc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1966
- Griffith Rubber Mills, a Corporation v. Henry S. HoffarCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963
- Laitram Corporation v. Deepsouth Packing CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1968
- Peelers Company v. WendtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1966
- Laurent Regimbal v. Peter Scymansky, Laurent Regimbal v. Lloyd Brulotte, Laurent Regimbal v. Melvin J. NewhouseCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1971
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.