Keller v. Adams-Compbell Company…
“ The District Court said of the alleged infringing device: 'The defendants' bracket is an invention. It is a surprise to me that that which the defendants did could be done. The bracket will fit any glass. ”
Keller v. Adams-Compbell Company…
“ The District Court said of the alleged infringing device: 'The defendants' bracket is an invention. It is a surprise to me that that which the defendants did could be done. The bracket will fit any glass. ”
Keller v. Adams-Compbell Company…
“ The real difference between the device as shown in the patent and the alleged infringement is in the method by which the glass is clamped. In the patent, the clamps operate on both sides of the ends of the glass, engaging its opposite surfaces. In the defendant's device, these clamps are brought nearer to the center of the shield member, because they are held by perforations in the glass and do not need to reach over to the ends. ”
Keller v. Adams-Compbell Company…
“ There was only one expert witness produced by the plaintiff as to the originality and utility of the invention and the infringement by the respondent's device. His evidence was presented in an affidavit, but he was tendered for cross-examination, which the defendants below declined to pursue. No expert evidence was offered by defendants, though they introduced a number of patents to show the state of the art.The patent is for glass wings or auxiliaries secured in an adjustable manner to the main windshield of an automobile. ”