Legal Opinion
Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. J. D. Mott Iron Works
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey
Decided April 8, 1907PublishedCited by 4 opinions
In Equity. On final hearing.
1Opinion of the Court
CROSS, District Judge.
The bill of complaint charges the defendant with infringing a patent issued to one James W. Arrott, Jr., dated September ¾6, 1899, known as No. 633,941, and which by assignment subsequently became, and is now, the property of the complainant. The device covered by the patent is a “dredger for pul-verulent material,” and the patentee, in describing it, says:
“This invention has relation to articles used for sifting and distributing powdered enameling material on the surface of bath tubs and other vessels, commonly known to the trade as ‘dredgers.’ ”
The answer sets up the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- The Barbed Wire PatentSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Coffin v. OgdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Deering v. Winona Harvester WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. ArrottCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1905
- Arrott v. Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania · 1904
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Pittsburgh-Erie Saw Corp. v. Southern Saw Service, Inc.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1955
- Wayman v. Louis Lipp Co.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1912
- Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. Iron City Sanitary Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1915
- General Electric Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1911