Case Name: MARVEL EQUIPMENT COMPANY v. MERIT OIL EQUIPMENT COMPANY; MERIT OIL EQUIPMENT COMPANY v. MARVEL EQUIPMENT COMPANY
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1928-11-10
Citations: 29 F.2d 313
Docket Number: Nos. 4959, 4960
Parties: MARVEL EQUIPMENT COMPANY v. MERIT OIL EQUIPMENT COMPANY. MERIT OIL EQUIPMENT COMPANY v. MARVEL EQUIPMENT COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 29
Pages: 313–313

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.