Legal Opinion
Traitel Marble Co. v. U. T. Hungerford Brass & Copper Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided November 1, 1927No. 148PublishedCited by 58 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtL. Hand, Circuit Judge
(after stating
the facts as above). The general attack upon the invention we answered in our earlier opinion, and we need add nothing to what we there said, except in so far as Meinzer’s patent may be thought to affect the result. It is quite plain that Mainzer had no such notion as Calkins. It is quite true that he disclosed brass strips, in some' instances sunk into the concrete, to mark out the pattern of the mosaic, and that he spoke of lugs and notches in the strip to prevent it from working loose. So far as his drawings disclose, these lugs and notches are either in the concrete or in…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Miller v. Eagle Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
- O'Reilly v. MorseSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1897
- The Suffolk Company v. HaydenSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by58 opinions
- Claude Neon Lights, Inc. v. E. MacHlett & SonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
- Oliver United Filters, Inc. v. SilverCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1953
- Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1956
- B. F. Sturtevant Co. v. Massachusetts Hair & Felt Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1941
- Hartford-Empire Co. v. Obear-Nester Glass Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1934
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.