Autogiro Company of America v. The United States
United States Court of Claims
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCo Wen, Chief Judge
With deference to the majority and with due recognition of the time and study which Judge Durfee and my associates who join with him have devoted to the consideration of this case, I am unable to agree with that portion of the court’s opinion which relates to Cierva Patent No. 1,947,901, referred as to the ’901 patent.
As the trial commissioner pointed out in his opinion, helicopters with power-driven rotary wings and gyroplanes with wind-driven (autorotation) rotary wings are both broadly old and both types are rotary wing aircraft. In resolving the issue, it is important to bear in mind that…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- United States v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1908
- White v. DunbarSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Davis v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1964
- Dodge Street Building Corporation, a Nebraska Corporation v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1965
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.