Legal Opinion
Dwight & Lloyd Sintering Co. v. Greenawalt
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided August 20, 1928No. 278PublishedCited by 69 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtL. Hand, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The suit is so complicated, and such different considerations apply to the disposition of each patent, that it is necessary to treat them separately.
The Basie Patent.
If we disregard the first supposed infringement at Modem in 1910 and the experimental plant at Midvale, the defendant’s continuous exploitation of the “basic” patent begins in the spring of 1912, 11% years before the bill was filed. It is not, however, quite fair to ignore these earlier efforts, and so to cut off 2 'years from the plaintiff’s period of inaction. Dwight saw the Modern photograph…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Railway Co. v. SaylesSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Mahn v. HarwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Butterworth v. United States Ex Rel. HoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Webster Electric Co. v. Splitdorf Electrical Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by69 opinions
- A.C. Aukerman Company v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- Labounty Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission, Dudley Shearing MacHine Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Intervenor-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- Baker Manufacturing Company v. Whitewater Manufacturing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1970
- Mathews Conveyer Co. v. Palmer-Bee Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1943
- Potash Co. of America v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1954
64 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.