Legal Opinion
Cincinnati Car Co. v. New York Rapid Transit Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided August 1, 1933No. 429PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
L. HAND, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for in- - fringement of patent No. 1,501,325, issued on July 15, 1924, to Thomas Elliott, and included two others in the bill. We held the patent just mentioned, and one of the others infringed; the third, not infringed. Cincinnati Car Co. v. New York Rapid Transit Co., 35 F.(2d) 679. Later we suspended the injunction to allow the defendant to substitute another device. 37 F.(2d) 100. It did so, and when the new structure came before us, we held that it escaped the claims of the patent. 52 F.(2d) 44. The cause had gone to a master to…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Dowagiac Manufacturing Co. v. Minnesota Moline Plow Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. v. Wagner Electric & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Garretson v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Manufacturing Co. v. CowingSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Dobson v. Hartford Carpet Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1885
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1970
- Georgia-Pacific Corporation v. U. S. Plywood-Champion Papers Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1971
- Twm Manufacturing Co., Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellants v. Dura Corp. And Kidde, Inc., Appellants/cross-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
- Astrazeneca Ab v. Apotex Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2015
- Tektronix, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1977
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.