In the Supreme Court of the United States, April 1908; Continental Paper Bag Co., petitioner, vs. Eastern Paper Bag Co. respondent. No. 202. Brief and argument for the Continental Co

 
9781231242186: In the Supreme Court of the United States, April 1908; Continental Paper Bag Co., petitioner, vs. Eastern Paper Bag Co. respondent. No. 202. Brief and argument for the Continental Co
View all copies of this ISBN edition:
 
 

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1908 Excerpt: ...infringed the Kitselman patent; the defendant's machine having been made and used under the later Whitney patent No. 502,025. of December 24, 1895. This question of infringement turned in each of the courts, upon the question whether the Kitselman. patent was a primary patent or was a secondary patent; each of the courts holding that, if it was a primary patent, it was entitled to a construction broad enough to cover the Whitney machine; but that if it was a secondary patent, it was not entitled to a construction broad enough to cover that machine. The Circuit Court held that the Kitselman patent was not a primary patent; and therefore that court decided the question of infringement in the negative. The Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Kitselman patent was a primary patent; and therefore it decided the question of infringement in the aflirmative. I The Supreme Court in an opinion delivered by Chief Justice FULLER decided that the Kitselman patent was not a primary patent; and therefore decided that the Whitney machine did not infringe the Kitselman patent. The question whether the Kitselman patent was a primary patent or a secondary patent, depended upon the question whether any or all of several prior patents on other machines, would operate to relegate the Kitselman patent to a secondary position. The Circuit Court of Appeals held that they could not have that effect, because it found none of them to represent a machine which could perform the function of the machine of the Kitselman patent; Kitselman v2. Kokomo Fence Machine Co., 108 F. RI, 658, 1901. But the Supreme Court differed from the Circuit Court of Appeals upon that question of comparative function, and therefore decided that the Kitselman patent was not a primary patent. The law of ...

"synopsis" may belong to another edition of this title.

(No Available Copies)

Search Books:



Create a Want

If you know the book but cannot find it on AbeBooks, we can automatically search for it on your behalf as new inventory is added. If it is added to AbeBooks by one of our member booksellers, we will notify you!

Create a Want