Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Root

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York

Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Root

10 F. Cas. 743, 1 Ban. & A. 384, 1874 U.S. App. LEXIS 1789

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York

DecidedJuly 21, 1874

StatusPublished

This text of 10 F. Cas. 743 (Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Root) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Root, 10 F. Cas. 743, 1 Ban. & A. 384, 1874 U.S. App. LEXIS 1789 (circtndny 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

HUNT, Circuit Justice.

The court decides, on the authority of the cases of Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Wetherbee [Case No. 3,810] and Goodyear. Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Smith [Id. 5,598], that the reissued letters patent No. 1,904, dated March 21, 1865, reissued to the Dental Vulcanite Company, assignee of John A. Cummings, are valid; that the invention covered thereby, is patentable; that it was not abandoned, or relinquished to the public, and, that it was not in public use, or on sale, for more than two years prior to said Cummings’ application for a patent, with his consent or allowance. Decree ordered for complainants.

[For other eases involving this patent, see note to Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Wetherbee, Case No. 3,810.]

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

HUNT, Circuit Justice.

The court decides, on the authority of the cases of Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Wetherbee [Case No. 3,810] and Goodyear. Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Smith [Id. 5,598], that the reissued letters patent No. 1,904, dated March 21, 1865, reissued to the Dental Vulcanite Company, assignee of John A. Cummings, are valid; that the invention covered thereby, is patentable; that it was not abandoned, or relinquished to the public, and, that it was not in public use, or on sale, for more than two years prior to said Cummings’ application for a patent, with his consent or allowance. Decree ordered for complainants.

[For other eases involving this patent, see note to Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Wetherbee, Case No. 3,810.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 F. Cas. 743, 1 Ban. & A. 384, 1874 U.S. App. LEXIS 1789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodyear-dental-vulcanite-co-v-root-circtndny-1874.