Legal Opinion

Electro Bleaching Gas Co. v. Paradon Engineering Co.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided May 17, 1926No. 369PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above).

The validity of this patent has been sustained, not only by Campbell, District Judge, in the court below, but in the District Court for the Western District of Missouri by Van Valkenburgh, District Judge. Electro Bleaching Gas Co. v. Miller, 264 F. 429. In these opinions the history of Omstein’s patent and the development of water purification by the introduction of chlorine are set forth with thoroughnéss and at great length. We have nothing to add to them; we agree with their result, and only note that, although this case was tried five years after…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1908
  2. Electro Bleaching Gas Co. v. MillerDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1920

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Electro-Bleaching Gas Co. v. Paradon Engineering Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1926
  2. Chas. H. Lilly Co. v. I. F. Laucks, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1933
  3. Hall v. Montgomery Ward & Co.District Court, N.D. West Virginia · 1944
  4. Graham Paper Co. v. International Paper Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1931
  5. I. F. Laucks, Inc. v. Kaseno Products Co.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1932

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API