Universal Caster & Foundry Co. v. M. B. Schenck Co.
Citations
- 165 F. 344
- 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5371
Syllabus
<p>1. Patents (§ 141*) — Reissue—Validitt.</p> <p>A patentee may extend his claims by a reissue, when the invention remains the same and there is no material change in the drawings and specification.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Patents, Cent. Dig. § 208: Dec. Dig. § 141.*]</p> <p>2. Patents (§ 328*) — Anticipation—Infringement—Furniture Caster.</p> <p>The Diss reissue patent, No. 11,982 (original No. GS4.956), for a furniture caster, was a legitimate reissue, within the invention disclosed by the specification and drawings of the original application, and was not anticipated, and is valid. Claims 1 and 2 also held infringed.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Patents, Dee. Dig. § 328.*]</p> <p>3. Patents (S 328*) — Infringement—Furniture Caster.</p> <p>The Diss patent, No. 725,325, for a furniture caster, claim 2, held not anticipated, valid, and infringed.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Patents, Dee. Dig. § 328.*]</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- defendant’s claim that he relied on the representations of a co-defendant’s attorney that “he had nothing to worry about” does not clearly qualify as a ground for relief from judgment
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Noyes
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.