Legal Opinion

Maytag Co. v. Easy Washing Mach. Corp.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided April 4, 1938No. Nos. 230, 231PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MANTON, Circuit Judge.

These suits are for infringement of patent No. 1,866,779 for a gyrator type of washing machine. We held this patent invalid as to claims 231 and 26;2 also, claim 38, for a method claim, in our determination of a suit in Maytag Co. v. Brooklyn Edison Co., Inc., 2 Cir., 86 F.2d 625. In addition to these claims (23 and 26), claim 293 is here in suit.

*88Claim 29 defines the washing machine of the patent in the same language as claim 26. It differs from claim 26 in that the impeller is expressly stated to be mounted adjacent to the bottom of the tub. In claim 23 of the patent,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Maytag Co. v. Brooklyn Edison Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1936

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Maytag Co. v. Hurley MacHine Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
  2. Maytag Co. v. Hurley Machine Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
  3. General Electric Supply Corp. v. Maytag Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1938
  4. Maytag Co. v. Hurley Machine Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938

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

Powered by the Exa API