Legal Opinion

Grinnell Washing Mach. Co. v. Clarinda Lawn Mower Co.

District Court, S.D. Iowa

Decided September 6, 1916Published

In Equity. Suit by the Grinnell Washing Machine Company against the Clarinda Lawn Mower Company.

1Opinion of the Court

WADE, District Judge.

[1] The principal defense is noninfringement. There is no proof relating to the validity of the patent, except what may appear in affidavits, and inasmuch as the Circuit Court of Appeals of this Circuit, in Newton Washing Machine Co. v. Grinnell Washing Machine Co., 222 Fed. 512, 138 C. C. A. 112, has specifically determined that the patent is valid, it is the duty of this court to accept such adjudication as a guide herein. I do not hold that this is an adjudication as to the defendants; but, in the absence of any issue or proof introducing new defense or new evidence,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. E. E. Johnson Co. v. Grinnell Washing Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1916
  2. Newton Washing Mach. Co. v. Grinnell Washing Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1915

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

Powered by the Exa API