Legal Opinion
Cold Metal Process Co. v. UNITED STATES ENG. & FOUNDRY CO.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided January 9, 1933No. 2506PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
McVICAR, District Judge.
The court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact.(1) Plaintiff, the Cold Metal Process Company, is a corporation of Ohio, having a place of business at Youngstown, Ohio. Defendant, United Engineering & Foundry Company, is a Pennsylvania corporation having a place of business at Pittsburgh, in the Westem District of Pennsylvania.(2) The patent in suit, No. 1,779,195, issued October 21, 1930, covers a method and apparatus for rolling thin, sheetlike material. Abram P. Steekel is the inventor. Plaintiff is the owner by assignment from…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Diamond Rubber Co. of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- O'Reilly v. MorseSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Coffin v. OgdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Corona Cord Tire Co. v. Dovan Chemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1928
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engineering & Foundry Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Cold Metal Process Co. v. Republic Steel Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1956
- United States v. Cold Metal Process Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1947
- Cold Metal Process Co. v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1939
- Cold Metal Process Co. v. E. W. Bliss Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1960
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.