Fireball Gas Tank & Illuminating Co. v. Commercial Acetylene Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT; The facts, which involve the propriety of issuing an interlocutory injunction in a suit for infringement- of patents for acetylene gas apparatus, are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice McKenna
By this writ there is brought here for review a decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals affirming an order for an interlocutory injunction against the infringement of certain letters patent.
The Circuit Court of Appeals considered the question in the case to be the narrow one whether the injunction was properly granted.
Petitioners, who were defendants in the District Court, attack not only that conclusion but contend for the larger relief of a dismissal of the bill.
The Acetylene Company is the owner of letters patent No. 664,383 granted December 25, 1900, for “apparatus for storing and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Miller v. Eagle Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Cochrane v. DeenerSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking MacHine Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Merrill v. YeomansSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- General Electric Co. v. AlexanderDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1921
- Permutit Co. v. Graver CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1930
- Leavitt v. McBee Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1942
- American Tri-Ergon Corp. v. Paramount Publix Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
- Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. DudasDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2007
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.