Legal Opinion
CONDENSER CORPORATION, ETC. v. Micamold Radio Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided November 30, 1944No. 27PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
L. HAND, Circuit Judge.
The defendant appeals from a judgment against it, holding valid and infringed claims 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of patent No. 1,940,847, issued on December 26, 1933 to Harold I. Danziger. The claims may, for convenience, be divided into two groups: One, Two and Three, of which Claim One alone need be considered; and Claims Nine, Ten, Eleven and Twelve, 'of which Claim Eleven will serve for all. Each is quoted in the margin. * The patented machine was designed to produce electric condensers automatically. A condenser is made up of two electrically conducting surfaces in a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- City of Milwaukee v. Activated Sludge, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1934
- American Safety Device Co. v. Kurland Chemical Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
- Nerney v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1936
- Aerovox Corp. v. Micamold Radio Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1937
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2003
- Maurice A. Garbell, Inc. v. Boeing CompanyDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1973
- Laskowitz v. Marie Designer, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 1954
- Jungersen v. BadenCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
- Hughes Tool Company, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. G. W. Murphy Industries, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.