Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Wabash Corp. v. Ross Electric Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided February 21, 1951No. 21714_1Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFrank, Circuit Judge
I agree with Judge A. N. HAND with respect to the product patent. I agree with Judge CHASE’S discussion of the process patent, except in one particular: I disagree with much (not all) that he says *587in a passage in his opinion which I quote in the footnote.1 My disagreement concerns the following:
The trial judge made formal findings2 that three claims of the process patent were valid but not infringed; his decree dismissed the complaint as to these claims, Judge CHASE says that it was proper for the trial judge thus to state his conclusion that the claims were valid, although he held them…
2Cases cited113 opinions
- United States v. United States Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Webster v. FallSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
108 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.