Legal Opinion
Blish, Mize & Silliman Hardware Co. v. Time Saver Tools, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided August 29, 1956No. 5247PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MURRAH, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal. from the District Court of Kansas, holding appellee’s patent for a detachable drill bit valid and infringed by appellant’s accused device. Appellants first plead noninfringement, then invalidity. But, following what has been said to be the better practice, Sinclair & Carroll Co., Inc., v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 S.Ct. 1143, 89 L.Ed. 1644, we shall first consider the issue of validity.
The Patent (No. 2,681,673), issued to Mackey in June 1954, relates to an improvement in drill bit construction, and particularly to drill bits used for…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Diamond Rubber Co. of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Hotchkiss v. GreenwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- 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
- Swofford v. B & W, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1968
- Tatko Bros. Slate Co., Inc. v. Matthew HannonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1959
- B. F. Goodrich Co. v. United States Rubber Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1956
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.