Mississippi Wire-Glass Co. v. Pittsburgh Plate-Glass Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania

Mississippi Wire-Glass Co. v. Pittsburgh Plate-Glass Co.

168 F. 90, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5378

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 5, 1909

DocketNo. 25

StatusPublished

This text of 168 F. 90 (Mississippi Wire-Glass Co. v. Pittsburgh Plate-Glass Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mississippi Wire-Glass Co. v. Pittsburgh Plate-Glass Co., 168 F. 90, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5378 (circtwdpa 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In this case the complainant charges infringement of letters patent No. 800,131, granted September 26, 1905, to Arthur J. Baldwin, for a machine for making wire-glass, and patent No. 847,637, granted March 19, 1907, for a method of making wire-glass. The machine patent is for a structure so near akin to the respondent’s table-roll machine, which we have considered in an opinion filed herewith, in a case between these same parties, that, if we are correct in our estimate of that machine, this patent is void for lack of patentable novelty.

As to the method patent, we are clear that, in view of the patents of Schmertz, Appert, and Shuman, it lacks patentable novelty.

Bet a decree be drawn accordingly dismissing the bill.

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

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In this case the complainant charges infringement of letters patent No. 800,131, granted September 26, 1905, to Arthur J. Baldwin, for a machine for making wire-glass, and patent No. 847,637, granted March 19, 1907, for a method of making wire-glass. The machine patent is for a structure so near akin to the respondent’s table-roll machine, which we have considered in an opinion filed herewith, in a case between these same parties, that, if we are correct in our estimate of that machine, this patent is void for lack of patentable novelty.

As to the method patent, we are clear that, in view of the patents of Schmertz, Appert, and Shuman, it lacks patentable novelty.

Bet a decree be drawn accordingly dismissing the bill.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 F. 90, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mississippi-wire-glass-co-v-pittsburgh-plate-glass-co-circtwdpa-1909.