Legal Opinion

A. F. Hamacek Marine Corp. v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided March 6, 1939No. K-185PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLittletoN, Judge

In view of the facts established by the record in this case, the stated object of the invention, and the description of its construction as set forth in the patent in suit, we are of opinion that plaintiff is not entitled to recover. The essential facts established by the record are set forth in the findings. Plaintiff takes exceptions to certain of the findings and has proposed eighty-two additional findings. Upon consideration of these exceptions and the proposed additional findings in the light of the entire record in the case, and the *389specifications and claims of the patent in suit, we…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Steward v. American Lava Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
  3. Isham v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1932

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. McCulloch Motors Corp. v. Oregon Saw Chain Corp.District Court, S.D. California · 1964
  2. Reed Propeller Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1942
  3. Gazda v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1952

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

Powered by the Exa API