Perry v. Weed Chain Tire Grip Co.

215 F. 921, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1314
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedJune 30, 1914
DocketNo. 2616
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 215 F. 921 (Perry v. Weed Chain Tire Grip Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Perry v. Weed Chain Tire Grip Co., 215 F. 921, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1314 (6th Cir. 1914).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

There was a decree below adjudging infringment of all the claims of the Parsons patent, No. 723,299, upon non-skid chains for automobiles. This patent has been the subject of so many reported decisions 1 that it is useless to set out the details of the present controversy. Infringement is not denied The contest is on the issue of validity

If it had been made clear to the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit, as it now seems to appear from the Scientific American articles, that Thomson’s armor not only really had the creeping motion around the tire, but that he knew and understood this function and claimed merit for it, that court might not have sustained the first and the other very broad claims of the Parsons patent. These claims are not confined to non-skidding devices, or to vehicle wheels, but extend to protective armor and to all kinds of wheels or pulleys. However, we do not doubt that Parsons’ development of the idea and his practical application of it to rapidly running wheels by the cross-[922]*922chains, or equivalent device well adapted to creeping, was a meritorious invention, and this—the invention in its commercial form—is protected by claim 6. Whether the remaining claims are valid is of no vital importance to defendant, and in such a situation any uncertainty we may feel regarding some of them does not justify us in declining to follow the repeated adjudications.

Thq decree below must be affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Naceskid Service Chain Co. v. Perdue
1 F.2d 924 (Sixth Circuit, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
215 F. 921, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perry-v-weed-chain-tire-grip-co-ca6-1914.