Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
MARVEL EQUIPMENT COMPANY v. MERIT OIL EQUIPMENT COMPANY; MERIT OIL EQUIPMENT COMPANY v. MARVEL EQUIPMENT COMPANY, 1928 — 29 F.2d 313 · caselaw · US
IP
MARVEL EQUIPMENT COMPANY v. MERIT OIL EQUIPMENT COMPANY; MERIT OIL EQUIPMENT COMPANY v. MARVEL EQUIPMENT COMPANY
29 F.2d 313·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·1928
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
MARVEL EQUIPMENT COMPANY v. MERIT OIL EQUIPMENT COMPANY. MERIT OIL EQUIPMENT COMPANY v. MARVEL EQUIPMENT COMPANY.
Circuit Court of Appeals. Sixth Circuit.
November 10, 1928.
Nos. 4959, 4960.
For opinion below, see 29 F.(2d) 308.
Chas. L. Byron and Henry M. Huxley, both of Chicago, Ill., for Marvel Equipment Co.
Charles E. Brock, of Cleveland, Ohio (Hull, Brock & West, of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for Merit OR Co.
Frank E. Liverance, Jr., of Grand Rapids, Mich., amicus curiæ.
Before DENISON, MACK, and MOORMAN, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The patents in suit and the alleged infringing devices are fully described in the opinion of the District Court. We are of opinion that defendant had the equivalent -of the patentee’s depending guide but Haines No. 959,216 did not have it, and we also agree with the other conclusions of the District Court.
Affirmed.