R. U. V. Engineering Corp. v. Borden Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
L. HAND, Chief Judge.
Judge Coxe’s opinion in the District Court1 states the facts so fully that we need not repeat them here; and, indeed, we follow so closely his discussion of the invalidity of the claims because of their variance from the original disclosure, that it is perhaps doubtful whether we can add anything useful to what he has said. We have set out in an appendix a number of passages from- the disclosure, which relate to the “activation” of milk to produce Vitamin D. These very fully describe that process (there are other passages specifically devoted to “sterilization”), and it…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Muncie Gear Works, Inc. v. Outboard, Marine & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Adams Electric Ry. Co. v. Lindell Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1896
- Carl Braun, Inc. v. Kendall-Lamar Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1941
- Thompson v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1940
- Bird v. Elaborated Roofing Co. of BuffaloCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1919
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Autogiro Company of America v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1967
- Coats Loaders & Stackers, Inc. v. HendersonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1956
- Jacquard Knitting MacHine Co. v. Ordnance Gauge Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1951
- Foster Wheeler Corp. v. BABCOCK & WILCON CO.District Court, S.D. New York · 1981
- Fujitsu Limited v. Sprague Electric Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1967
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.