Legal Opinion
Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided April 17, 1939No. 441PublishedCited by 144 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Roberts
The courts below have held valid and infringed certain claims of three patents. 1 granted to Genzo Shimadzu, a citizen and resident of Japan. The earliest is for a method of forming a finely divided and, consequently, more chemically reactive, lead powder. The second is for a method or process of manufacturing a fine powder composed of lead suboxide and metallic lead and for the product-of the process. The third is for an apparatus for the continuous production of lead oxides in the form of a dry-fine powder. Such powder is useful in the manufacture of plates for storage batteries.
The bill…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- MacHine Co. v. MurphySupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Pennock v. DialogueSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- Egbert v. LippmannSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Mumm v. Jacob E. Decker & SonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Sessions v. RomadkaSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by144 opinions
- W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Garlock, Inc., Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free TrustSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
- Jones v. Liberty Glass Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Dean A. Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1955
- Francis v. Southern Pacific Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
139 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.