Malignani v. Germania Electric Lamp Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey
In Equity. On final hearing.
1Opinion of the Court
CROSS District Judge.
A number of defenses were set up in the answer filed in this case, which, however, with the exception of that of noninfringement, were all abandoned at the hearing. Indeed, save as to the excepted defense, there was no testimony worthy of the name offered in support of any of them. The bill of complaint is founded upon letters patent No. 537,(193, issued April 1(5, 1895, to one Arturo Malignani, for a “process of evacuating incandescent lamps.” The General Electric Company is a licensee of the patentee. Infringement of the first claim only is alleged. It is as follows:
“A…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Cochrane v. DeenerSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Mowry v. WhitneySupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- IVES v. HamiltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Hoyt v. HorneSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Craft-Stone, Inc. v. Zenitherm Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1927
- General Electric Co. v. Hill-Wright Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1909
- Malignani v. Hill-Wright Electric Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1910
- Malignani v. Jasper Marsh Consol. Electric Lamp Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1910
- General Foods Corp. v. Perk Foods Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1968
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.