Legal Opinion
Benz v. Celeste Fur Dyeing & Dressing Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided June 24, 1943No. 260PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
The process which plaintiffs contend the defendants are infringing involves the use of formaldehyde and an acid catalyst, but not the use of cresol. The claims in suit do not, by their terms, call *847for the use of cresol. But defendants assert that those claims, if read so as not to make the use of cresol mandatory, are invalid. This argument requires recourse to the file-wrapper. Plaintiffs insist that the file-wrapper was not before the trial court and cannot be considered by us. However, because of the stipulation as to the contents of the record here, it is proper,…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Railway Co. v. SaylesSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Swift & Co. v. Hocking Valley Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Hobbs v. BeachSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Security Mortgage Co. v. PowersSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Zalkind v. ScheinmanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
- Leo Walton v. Arabian American Oil CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1956
- Phelan v. Middle States Oil CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- Nachman Spring-Filled Corporation v. Kay Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
- Kreste v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.