Legal Opinion
General Electric Co. v. P. R. Mallory & Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided February 2, 1923PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MAYER, Circuit Judge.
The cause is the usual infringement suit. The motion is for a preliminary injunction. The patents are (1) the Just and Hanaman patent, No. 1,018,502; and (2) the Rangmuir patent, No. 1,180,159. These patents have been the subject-matter of spirited contest in this court and in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. General Electric Co. v. Laco-Philips Co., affirmed 233 Fed. 96, 147 C. C. A. 166; General Electric Co. v. Nitro-Tungsten Ramp Co. (D. C.) 261 Fed. 606, affirmed (C. C. A.) 266 Fed. 994; General Electric Co. v. Alexander (D. C.) 277 Fed. 290,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- A. R. Mosler & Co. v. LurieCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1913
- General Electric Co. v. Laco-Philips Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1916
- General Electric Co. v. AlexanderCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922
- General Electric Co. v. Nitro Tungsten Lamp Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1920
- General Electric Co. v. AlexanderDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1921
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Hazeltine Corporation v. Radio Corporation of AmericaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1931
- General Electric Co. v. Minneapolis Electric Lamp Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1924
- Hilditch v. American Bumper CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1926
- General Electric Co. v. P. R. Mallory & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1923
- Elkon Works, Inc. v. Welworth Automotive Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 1928
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.