7 known cases. View patent page →
In equity. Asserted patents were Gray 222,895, Dowling 289,518, and Marmon 274,508. US 265,927 was not asserted; the court relied on it as anticipatory prior art against Marmon 274,508. Decree for plaintiff on the Gray patent; bill dismissed as to the Dowling and Marmon patents.
Patent infringement suit. Asserted patents were Gray 222,895, Gray 238,677, Odell reissue 10,139, and Birkholz 269,628. Bill dismissed for want of equity; patents held anticipated/void and no infringement. US 265,927 was not named among the patents sued on.
Supreme Court appeal from the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois in the roller-mill patent equity suit. The Court affirmed the dismissal and held US 238,677 void for want of novelty as to claims 2 and 3, while companion patent US 222,895 was not infringed.
Equity suit in which U.S. Patent No. 289,518 (Dowling) was held invalid for want of invention and the bill was dismissed as to the Dowling and Marmon patents. Only the Gray patent (No. 222,895), claims 2–5, was sustained; an ancillary motion to stay the injunction pending appeal (39 F. 803) was denied.
Related suit against the maker of the mill accused in Coombs, on the same four patents asserted in the Michigan case. The reported opinion addresses only the Gray patent, and the motion for preliminary injunction was denied on bond; Dowling 289,518's presence in the asserted set is not expressly confirmed in the report.
Consolidated Roller-Mill Co. sought a preliminary injunction against George T. Smith Middlings Purifier Co. on U.S. Patent 222,895. The court denied the injunction, holding the Gray patent did not cover machines lacking the claimed lever or swinging arm and rod adjustment features, and addressed a res adjudicata/comity objection from the Wisconsin case.
Allis sued Freeman, with U.S. Patent 222,895 among several patents at issue. The U.S. Circuit Court for the Western District of Wisconsin dismissed the bill on anticipation grounds; an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was docketed in October 1887 but later dismissed.