Legal Opinion
Trussed Concrete Steel Co. v. Corrugated Bar Co.
District Court, W.D. New York
Decided September 8, 1913PublishedCited by 3 opinions
In Equity. Suit by the Trussed Concrete Steel Company against the Corrugated Bar Company. On final hearing, and on rehearing.
1Opinion of the Court
HAZEL, District Judge.
Suit has been brought on patent No. 862,-897, for expanded metal, granted August 13, 1907, to William D. For-syth, assignee, to the complainant, the Trussed Concrete Steel Company, and the bill alleges that the defendant, the Corrugated Bar Company, has infringed the claims for process and product which read as follows:
*394“(3) The process of forming expanded metal which consists in slitting the same along longitudinal lines so as to form parallel bands connected by tongues split through their bases, and expanding the material.
“(4) An expanded metal comprising a series of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Noonan v. Chester Park Athletic Club Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1900
- Woodward v. Boston Lasting Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1894
- Babcock v. ClarksonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1894
- Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Toledo Boiler Works Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1909
- Bradford v. Expanded Metal Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1906
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. International Typesetting Mach. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1914
- Douglass v. United States Appliance Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1949
- Martin Gauge Co. v. PollockDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1918