American Radiator Co. v. Shirley Radiator & Foundry Co.

Seventh Circuit

American Radiator Co. v. Shirley Radiator & Foundry Co.

199 F. 424, 118 C.C.A. 98, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1740

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedMay 3, 1912

DocketNo. 1,664

StatusPublished

This text of 199 F. 424 (American Radiator Co. v. Shirley Radiator & Foundry Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Radiator Co. v. Shirley Radiator & Foundry Co., 199 F. 424, 118 C.C.A. 98, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1740 (7th Cir. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

SANBORN, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). It ¡is not claimed that the Acanthus leaf (found in all of the ancient art), or any of the single elements used by the patentee in his design, are at all new. What he asserts is that he has gathered together into a unitary and harmonious structure the various features of the old art, including the foliated scroll, in simple, chaste, and modest form, and has thus made use of the inventive faculty.

The St. Louis, Premier, and Shirley were exhibited side by side in the courtroom at the time of the argument. We thought then, and further examination convinces us, that defendant’s radiator does not infringe. There is nearly as much difference between the Shirley and Premier as the Premier and St.. Louis. Both patents may be treated as valid, within narrow limits.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SANBORN, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). It ¡is not claimed that the Acanthus leaf (found in all of the ancient art), or any of the single elements used by the patentee in his design, are at all new. What he asserts is that he has gathered together into a unitary and harmonious structure the various features of the old art, including the foliated scroll, in simple, chaste, and modest form, and has thus made use of the inventive faculty.

The St. Louis, Premier, and Shirley were exhibited side by side in the courtroom at the time of the argument. We thought then, and further examination convinces us, that defendant’s radiator does not infringe. There is nearly as much difference between the Shirley and Premier as the Premier and St.. Louis. Both patents may be treated as valid, within narrow limits.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 F. 424, 118 C.C.A. 98, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-radiator-co-v-shirley-radiator-foundry-co-ca7-1912.