Legal Opinion
American Radium Co. v. Hipp. Didisheim Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 5, 1921PublishedCited by 3 opinions
In Fquiiy. Suit by the American Radium Company against the Hipp. Didisheim Company, Inc... and others, for infringement of letters patent No. 911,401, dated February 2, 1909, for luminous substance for indicators.
1Opinion of the Court
MAYER, District Judge.
The suit is the usual patent infringement suit for an injunction and accounting. The invention is for “certain new and useful improvements relating to improved luminous substance fer indicators containing radium for the indicating members of clocks, speed gages, and the like,” and the claims are:
“1. In a clock, speed gage or otlier similar device an indicator liaving a recess and a luminous compound in said recess.
•‘2. In a clock, speed gage or other similar device an indicator formed of tvso wires fixed together and between them a luminous compound.
‘3. In a clock, speed…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Last Chance Mining Co. v. Tyler Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Gay v. ParpartSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Lawrence Manufacturing Co. v. Janesville Cotton MillsSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hart Schaffner & Marx v. Alexander's Department Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1965
- Star Bedding Company v. The Englander Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1957
- Eaton v. AllenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1961