Wireless Specialty Apparatus Co. v. Mica Condenser Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Two bills in equity, filed in the Superior Court on January 30, 1920. The first suit was against two corporations, Mica Condenser Company, Ltd., and Watson Brothers, Inc., and thereby the plaintiff sought a decree that “the defendants and each of them be required and enjoined to assign forthwith to the plaintiff all right, title and interest in and to said applications for letters patent filed by said McPherson, [and described in the opinion] and in and to the inventions…
Read the full summary
Two bills in equity, filed in the Superior Court on January 30, 1920. The first suit was against two corporations, Mica Condenser Company, Ltd., and Watson Brothers, Inc., and thereby the plaintiff sought a decree that “the defendants and each of them be required and enjoined to assign forthwith to the plaintiff all right, title and interest in and to said applications for letters patent filed by said McPherson, [and described in the opinion] and in and to the inventions covered thereby, and in and to the patent or patents to be issued thereon, and to that end that said defendants be required…
1Opinion of the CourtJenney, J.
The Wireless Specialty Apparatus Company is the plaintiff in two suits, both relating to the same subject matter and tried together. During the world war the plaintiff made radio condensers for the United States government. On the signing of the armistice, it became apparent that this industry would be seriously affected if not ended, and the plaintiff’s officers conceived the idea of producing magneto condensers to be sold to manufacturers of electrical apparatus. By June, 1919, the six employees then remaining in the plaintiff’s condenser department were employed in experimental work in…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Bates v. CoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Solomons v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Dalzell v. Dueber Watch Case Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Hapgood v. HewittSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Gill v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Jet Spray Cooler, Inc. v. CramptonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1972
- J. T. Healy & Son, Inc. v. James A. Murphy & Son, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1970
- Sherman v. PfefferkornMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
- Wexler v. GreenbergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
- Junker v. PlummerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.