Legal Opinion
National Battery Co. v. Richardson Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided February 17, 1933No. 6092PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HICKENLOOPER, Circuit Judge.
By decree of the District Court, claims 2 and 3 of patent to Lukens, No, 1,752,917, were held valid and infringed. Defendant appeals. The claims in suit are printed in the margin.1
It is to be noted that claim 2 is for a composition of matter which is useful prmeipally in the manufacture of molded storage __ battery containers where it will be subjected to electrolytic action and the effeet of acid, Claim 3 is for a molded, article of the eomposition of matter covered by claim 2, to be used^ under like surroundings. There is no substantial difference between claims…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Diamond Rubber Co. of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & MacHine WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Corona Cord Tire Co. v. Dovan Chemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1928
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- National Latex Products Company v. Sun Rubber Company, Akron Presform Mold Company v. Sun Rubber CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1960
- Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp. v. Tatnall Measuring Systems Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1958
- Acme Highway Products Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. The D. S. Brown Company and Delmont D. Brown, Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1970
- Dow Chemical Co. v. Williams Bros. Well Treating Corp.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1936
- United States Rubber Co. v. General Tire & Rubber Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1942
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.