Daniel O'Donnell, Inc. v. Riscal Mfg. Co.
District Court, S.D. Iowa
In Equity. Suit by Daniel O’Donnell, Incorporated, and the Nota-miss Spark Gap Company against tlie Riscal Manufacturing Company, a partnership composed of August S'alrn and John H. Richter, August Salm, John II. Richter, and George R. Meissner. On final hearing. Decree for complainants.
1Opinion of the Court
WADE, District Judge.
The complainants charge defendants with infringement of United States letters patent No. 1,111,963, for an improvement in spark gaps, issued to Gottlieb Knorr, September 29, 1914. The invention is designed to be mounted on a spark plug of an internal combustion engine. The art is not new. The patent is a combination of known elements. The validity of the patent is not denied, and the sole question relating to the patent is whether the defendants infringe. There is also presented the question of unfair competition in trade, arising out of the use of the words “Notamiss”…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- MacHine Co. v. MurphySupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Deering v. Winona Harvester WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1901
- Smart v. WrightCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1915
- City of Boston v. AllenCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1898
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Coca-Cola Co. v. Carlisle Bottling WorksDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1929
- Bliss, Fabyan & Co. v. Aileen Mills, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1928
- Wonder Mfg. Co. v. BlockCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1918
- Block v. Jung Arch Brace Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1924