Legal Opinion
Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Precise Mfg. Corp.
District Court, W.D. New York
Decided August 6, 1925Published
1Opinion of the Court
HAZEL, District Judge.
It is unnecessary to discuss the technical aspects of these eases at length, as it appears that both the Fessenden patents in issue for heterodyne apparatus and method inventions have at various times been sustained in this circuit and accorded a broad scope of equivalents (Kintner v. Atlantic Com. Co. [D. C.] 241 F. 956; International Signal Co. v. Vreeland Apparatus Co. [C. C. A.] 278 F. 468); and so also the Armstrong patent in suit for regenerative invention (Armstrong & Westinghouse Co., etc., v. De Forest [D. C.] 279 F. 445 (affirmed [C. C. A.] 280 F. 584). 'These…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Armstrong v. De Forest Radio Telephone & Telegraph Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922
- Armstrong v. De Forest Radio Telephone & Telegraph Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1921
- 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
- Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Independent Wireless Telegraph Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1924
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.