Legal Opinion
Jesse D. Langdon and Eureka Vacuum Breaker Corporation v. Saltser & Weinsier, Inc., Sloan Valve Company, Intervener-Appellee
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided March 14, 1961No. 231, Docket 26139PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MADDEN, Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Zavatt, Judge) holding claim 2 of Langdon reissue patent 21,323 valid but not infringed. 175 F.Supp. 96. Appellants contend that the holding of non-infringement is erroneous. Appellees contend by cross appeal that the patent claim is invalid as anticipated by prior art and as a result of estoppel. Appellees also contend that the accused structure does not infringe; that Sloan, not Langdon, solved the back-flow problem; and that Langdon is es-topped by laches in bringing…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Waring Products Corp. v. Landers, Frary & ClarkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1959
- Langdon v. Saltser & Weinsier, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1959
3Cited by5 opinions
- Billy K. Watkins v. Northwestern Ohio Tractor Pullers Association, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1980
- Reeves Brothers, Inc. v. US Laminating Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 1968
- USM Corp. v. SPS Technologies, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1981
- M. O. S. Corporation, a Corporation v. John I. Haas Co., Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
- Jamesbury Corp. v. Litton Industrial Products, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1977