Kil-Nock Co. v. Chicago Plating Co.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
1Opinion of the Court
LINDLEY, District Judge.
Plaintiff alleges infringement of reissue patent No. 15,-671, granted February 12, 1924, to plaintiff, as assignee of the inventor,'Rose. The defenses are invalidity and noninfringement.
The patent ■ contains four claims, but claims 3 and 4 are clearly invalid, in view of the prior art, as disclosed by Hunt, No. 582,424. Claims 1 and 2 cover a device for an improved automatic bearing bolt and attachments, adapted for use in automatically taking up the wear on the bearing forming the connection between the crank shaft and the pitman, in an internal combustion engine. The…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hotchkiss v. GreenwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Brown v. PiperSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Smith v. NicholsSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Knapp v. MorssSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. Locomotive Engine Safety Truck Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1884
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- In Re WilliamsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1929
- Lindbladh Corp. v. C. E. Sheppard Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1933
- Shrader v. ReedDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 1952