Legal Opinion

United States Mitis Co. v. Carnegie Steel Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania

Decided July 30, 1898PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ACHESON, Circuit Judge.

The bill charges the defendant with the infringement of letters patent No. 333,373, for an improvement in “the process of manufacturing castings from wrought iron and steel by adding aluminium,” dated December 29, 1885, and issued to Thorsten Nordenfelt, assignee of Carl Gustav Wittenstrom, the inventor. The specification of the patent begins by pointing out that “one of the great difficulties in making castings from steel is to get a product which is solid, sound, homogeneous, or free from blisters or cavities.” It refers to recent improvements in the art of steel…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Roberts v. RoterU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania · 1872

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. United States Mitis Co. v. Detroit Steel & Spring Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1903
  2. United States Mitis Co. v. Midvale Steel Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1904
  3. Malignani v. Germania Electric Lamp Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1909
  4. Barnes v. LingoU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1907

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

Powered by the Exa API