Consolidated Contract Co. v. Hassam Paving Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon; Robert S. Bean, Judge. Suit in equity by the Hassam Paving Company and the Oregon Hassam Paving Company against the Consolidated Contract Company and the Pacific Coast Casualty Company. Decree for complainants, and defendants appeal.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon; Robert S. Bean, Judge. Suit in equity by the Hassam Paving Company and the Oregon Hassam Paving Company against the Consolidated Contract Company and the Pacific Coast Casualty Company. Decree for complainants, and defendants appeal. Suit by appellees (plaintiffs in the court below) against the appellants (defendants in the court below) for an injunction to prohibit alleged infringement by the appellants of letters patent No. 819,652, for a pavement and process of laying the same, issued to Walter E. Hassam by the…
1Opinion of the CourtMorrow, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). [1] The defendants place their defense on three grounds:
First. That the processes patented are the result of mechanical skill, and not the product of inventive genius, and the patents are therefore void.
Second. That the processes embodied in the Hassam patents were anticipated by prior patents, by prior use, and by prior publications.
Third. That the appellees, by their acts in inducing the officers of the city of Portland to include their process of paving in an ordinance defining the method, manner, and kind of street pavement to be laid in the city of…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Seymour v. OsborneSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Coffin v. OgdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Deering v. Winona Harvester WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Frischer & Co. v. Bakelite CorporationCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930
- In Re Orion Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1934
- Schumacher v. Buttonlath Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1920
- Cookingham v. Warren Bros.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1925
- Long v. DickDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1941
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.