Williams Manufacturing Co. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.
Supreme Court of the United States
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Roberts
The suit was for the infringement of Claims 6, 23,42,85, and 91 of the McFeely Patent No. 1,558,737 for improvements in automatic heel lasting machines. The District Court held the claims valid and infringed. 1 The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 2
The defendant sought certiorari on the ground that the claims were invalid under recent decisions of this court because they constituted attempts to repatent a broad combination of old devices—bed lasters and automatic tackers—and embodied only aggregations of new unpatentable mechanisms with old mechanical combinations. In pressing us to grant…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Seymour v. OsborneSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by113 opinions
- Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Armour & Co. v. Wilson & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1960
- Monroe Auto Equipment Company v. Heckethorn Manufacturing & Supply CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1964
- Beckman Instruments, Inc., and Leland C. Clark, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross v. Chemtronics, Inc. And J. Ryan Neville, Defendants-Appellees-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1970
108 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.