Legal Opinion

Dwight & Lloyd Sintering Co. v. Greenawalt

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided April 18, 1927PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThacher, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The patents in suit relate to “sintering” of fine ores; that is, their treatment with heat, by which they are agglomerated into cohesive porous masses, suitable for reduction in a blast furnace. The Huntington and Haberlein process patent, No. 786,814 (April 11, 1905), was the best method of sintering prior to Dwight & Lloyd patent, No. 882,517 (March 17, 1908). This process was capable of producing some sintered material, but in the mass the product was unsatisfactory in composition and costly to handle. It was produced in great pots, in which tons of ore…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1900
  2. Kelley v. BoettcherCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1898
  3. Webster Electric Co. v. Splitdorf Electrical Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
  4. Window Glass Mach. Co. v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1922
  5. Richardson v. D. M. Osborne & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1899

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co. v. Refining, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1943
  2. Dwight & Lloyd Sintering Co. v. American Ore Reclamation Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1939
  3. Union Shipbuilding Co. v. Boston Iron & Metal Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1936
  4. Dwight & Lloyd Sintering Co. v. American Ore Reclamation Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1937
  5. Amalgamated Dental Co. v. Lang Dental Mfg. Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1961

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