Legal Opinion

Hazeltine Corp. v. Wildermuth

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided July 1, 1929No. 322PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MANTON, Circuit'Judge.

Appellee sues for infringement of patent No. 1,533,858, granted April 14, 1925, to Hazeltine. Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 11,12, 14, and 16 are relied upon. The appellant, a dealer, is a purchaser from the Atwater Kent Manufacturing Company of four types referred to as models 20, 30, 32. and 35, which have all been held to infringe the patent. The patent relates to the control-of undesired regenerative effects, especially oscillation, by means of neutralizing circuits.

In the radio tube operation, as an amplifier of either radio or audio currents and of regenerative amplification,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Armstrong v. De Forest Radio Telephone & Telegraph Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Hazeltine Corporation v. Radio Corporation of AmericaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1931
  2. Hazeltine Corporation v. Radio CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1937
  3. Technidyne Corp. v. McPhilben-Keator, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
  4. Hazeltine Corp. v. WildermuthCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1929
  5. Hazeltine Corp. v. National Carbon Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931

4 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