Legal Opinion
Condit v. Jackson Corset Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided October 11, 1929No. 5144PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HICKS, Circuit Judge.
Suit for infringement of claims 1 and 2 of Mayer patent, No. 1,486,779, granted March 11, 1924, for girdle brassieres and girdles. 1 The de fenses were (1) lack of invention; (2) anticipation; and (3) noninfringement. Admittedly there was infringement, if the claims were valid. The District Judge found the claims in suit invalid.
To save claim 2 from anticipation by prior art garments, plaintiff insists that it should be construed (1) as if it read “(2) a closed front girdle constructed and arranged to encircle the figure in the region of the hips, comprising, in…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1885
- McCarty v. Lehigh Valley RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Ansonia Brass & Copper Co. v. Electrical Supply Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Railroad Supply Co. v. Elyria Iron & Steel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Wood v. Peerless Motor Car CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1935
- Bettendorf Co. v. Ohio Steel Foundry Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1932
- Remington Rand v. Master-Craft CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1933
- John T. Riddell, Inc. v. P. Goldsmith Sons Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1937
- Loeber Hair Goods Co. v. H. W. Gossard Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1936
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.