Legal Opinion
Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Taub
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided October 14, 1924PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KNOX, District Judge.
Defendant' has put upon the market and sold a superheterodyne radio receiving set, which plaintiffs claim to be an infringement of Fessenden patents, Nos. 1,050,441 and 1,050,728, and of the Armstrong patent, No. 1,113,149. Each of these patents has been adjudicated and sustained. They are now owned or controlled by plaintiffs.
The two Fessenden patents relate to heterodyning; one being for the method, and the other for the apparatus. Concededly defendant’s receiving set is not in form the apparatus shown in the Fessenden drawings. Nevertheless infringement of both patents…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Armstrong v. De Forest Radio Telephone & Telegraph Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922
- International Signal Co. v. Vreeland Apparatus Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
- Kintner v. Atlantic Communication Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1917
3Cited by5 opinions
- Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Royal-Eastern Electrical Supply Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1925
- Radio Corp. of America v. Radio Engineering Laboratories, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1932
- Lillian McCullough Berghane v. Radio Corporation of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1954
- Martin Brothers Construction v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2025
- Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Precise Mfg. Corp.District Court, W.D. New York · 1925