Legal Opinion
Halstead v. Globe Hoist Co.
District Court, S.D. California
Decided May 4, 1964No. Civ. A. No. 40074PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WEIGEL, District Judge.
Plaintiff, John Halstead, doing business as a partnership under the name, Western Manufacturing Company, is the owner of two patents in the vehicle lifting field. Patent 2,949,978 (hereafter referred to as ’978) relates to a type of frame contact automobile hoist.1 Patent 2,956,643 (hereafter referred to as ’643) relates to an automatic safety leg used in conjunction with vehicle lifts.2
Plaintiff charges defendant, Globe Hoist Company, with manufacturing devices which infringe Claims 3, 4 and 5 of the ’978 patent, and Claims 1 and 2 of the ’643 patent.
Defendant…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Kemart Corp. v. Printing Arts Research Laboratories, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1953
- Patterson-Ballagh Corp. v. MossCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1953
- Griffith Rubber Mills, a Corporation v. Henry S. HoffarCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Ribhi Othman and Yusif H. Mashni, Individually, and Doing Business as E-Z Market, a Partnership v. Globe Indemnity CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- Piland Corp. v. REA Construction Co.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 1987
- Langsett v. Marmet CorporationDistrict Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1964