Legal Opinion

Elyria Iron & Steel Co. v. Mohegan Tube Co.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided May 21, 1925No. 294PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge

(after stating the fasts as above). Defenses insisted, on in pleading and argument are laek of invention and noninfringement; but both produce a single position for defendants, who insist that Johnston’s method is no more than a function of a well designed and operated Parpart machine; and all they do is to make i-ube by such a machine. Some study of the history of electric butt-welding of tubular forms should throw light on this contention, which necessarily implies one of two things — either (sines Parpart’s and Johnston’s patente are separated by 21 years) there was remarkable stupidity on…

2Cited by11 opinions

  1. Reiff v. Convergent TechnologiesDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1997
  2. National Tube Co. v. Steel & Tubes, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1937
  3. Sidney Blumenthal & Co. v. Salt's Textile Mfg. Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1927
  4. York Ice Machinery Corp. v. L. & K. Ice Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1934
  5. Steel & Tubes, Inc. v. Greenpoint Metallic Bed Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1929

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API