Legal Opinion

Claude Neon Lights, Inc. v. E. Machlett & Son

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided April 8, 1929No. 328PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MANTON, Circuit Judge.

When tMs suit for infringement of patent No. 1,125,476 was heard on appeal from a decree holding the patent valid, but not infringed (Claude Neon Lights, Inc., v. E. Machlett & Son [C. C. A.] 27 F.(2d) 702), we held that the lamp made by the defendant, and charged to be an infringement, was in fact established to be an infringement. The lamps there considered (Exhibits 9 and 10) had electrodes of large area containing a charge of magnesium carbonate. At the trial, and on the appeal, it was claimed that the disclosure of the Claude patent taught that the electrode area…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Claude Neon Lights, Inc. v. E. MacHlett & SonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
  2. Claude Neon Lights, Inc. v. E. Machlett & SonDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1929

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Mulhens & Kropff, Inc. v. Ferd. Muelhens, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
  2. Claude Neon Lights, Inc. v. E. Machlett & SonDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1929
  3. In re No. 32 East 67th StreetCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1938

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

Powered by the Exa API