Legal Opinion

Heath v. Frankel

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided January 15, 1946No. 11017PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GARRECHT, Circuit Judge.-

The two Heath patents in suit were issued to appellant to cover the use of cellophane and pliofilm as protective sheets for stencils. Before cellophane was used as a protective sheet, mere outlines were all that could be made on duplicating stencils with the stylus by anyone other than an expert without weakening the structure of the stencil. Without cellophane, the stylus picked up the minute fibers and destroyed the stencil structure, so that when the stencil was placed on the duplicating machine, the longitudinal pull on the stencil broke down the stencil fibers…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
  3. Evr-Klean Seat Pad Co. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1941
  4. Kalich v. Paterson Pacific Parchment Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1943
  5. Wolverine Fabricating & Mfg. Co. v. Detroit Gasket & Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1945

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Maurice A. Garbell, Inc. v. Boeing CompanyDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1973
  2. Mas v. Coca-Cola Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1947
  3. Griffith Rubber Mills, a Corporation v. Henry S. HoffarCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963
  4. Almon A. Heath v. A. B. Dick Company, an Illinois CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1958
  5. General Tire & Rubber Co. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1972

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API