Legal Opinion

Western States Mach. Co. v. S. S. Hepworth Co.

District Court, E.D. New York

Decided November 25, 1941No. Civil No. 1544PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.

This is a motion made by the General Electric Company for leave to intervene as a defendant in this action in so far as the *146same is based on United States Letters Patent No. 1,719,132, No. 1,758,901 and No. 1,861,978, in order to assert the defenses set forth in its proposed answer on the ground that it is the manufacturer and vendor to the defendant, as well as to others, of the timing devices the use of which in connection with defendant’s sugar centrifugal machines is charged by plaintiff in its complaint to be an infringement of said patents, and as such…

2Cited by9 opinions

  1. Stewart-Warner Corporation v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, and Canadian Westinghousecompany, Ltd., Intervenor-Defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1964
  2. Shipley v. Pittsburgh & L. E. R. Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1947
  3. Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish School BoardDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1969
  4. Innis, Speiden & Co. v. Food Machinery Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1942
  5. Mullins v. De Soto Securities Co.District Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1942

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API