1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 232 F.2d
  5. 232 F.2d 116 (1956)
 

SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO. v. BISHOP & BABCOCK MFG. CO.

Nos. 12586, 12587.

232 F.2d 116 (1956)

SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Appellant, v. The BISHOP AND BABCOCK MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellee. The BISHOP AND BABCOCK MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellant, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Appellee.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

April 19, 1956.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Philip T. Dalsimer, New York City, Haynes Johnson, David Kane, Kane, Dalsimer & Kane, New York City, Allan Hull, Harrison, Spangenberg & Hull, Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief, for Sears, Roebuck and Co.

Arthur H. Boettcher, Chicago, Ill., Arthur C. Johnson, Brown, Jackson, Boettcher & Dienner, Chicago, Ill., John T. Scott, M. B. & H. H. Johnson, Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief, for The Bishop and Babcock Mfg. Co.

Before ALLEN, MARTIN and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is the second controversy that has come to this court for adjudication appertaining to Mayo Patent, No. 2,322,041, for a combination automobile heater and windshield defroster.

On appeal to our court from a declaratory judgment, we held that Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Mayo patent were valid and infringed and that Claim 6 was invalid because too broad. Excel Auto Radiator Co. v. Bishop and Babcock Manufacturing Co., 6 Cir...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases