Legal Opinion
United States Pipe and Foundry Company v. Woodward Iron Company
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided January 9, 1964No. 8932_1PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ALBERT V. BRYAN, Circuit Judge.
That Patent No. 2,953,398, now owned’ by United States Pipe and Foundry-Company and covering a high-pressure-pipe joint, is valid and infringed by-the product of Woodward Iron Company-was the holding of the District Court.. We would affirm these conclusions finally-if we were persuaded that U. S. Pipe’s, assignors were the first inventors, but. the findings of the District Court are-not clear on that point. Our affirmance on all other phases of the case results, from the failure at trial of the appealing-defendant to refute the facts establishing- and…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance MacHinery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Investment Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Williams Manufacturing Co. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Servo Corporation of America, and Cross-Appellant v. General Electric Company, and Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1964
- Acme Highway Products Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. The D. S. Brown Company and Delmont D. Brown, Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1970
- Rohm and Haas Co. v. Dawson Chemical Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1983
- Hamilton Watch Co. v. Read Drug & Chemical Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1964
- In re BassCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.