Legal Opinion
Vapor Car Heating Co. v. Gold Car Heating & Lighting Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided May 3, 1920No. Patent 758,436PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLearned Hand, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The claims in suit are 10, 11 and 12. All are infringed by the defendant’s vapor valve, 1112-, the median diaphragm does not prevent the valve from being open to the atmosphere. Therefore the case turns upon validity. Let me ignore for the moment claims 11 and 12 and consider claim 10. Cleuet and Tudor had both shown devices for regulating the inlet of steam into a radiator system by a thermostat controlled by the exhaust steam. ' The basic idea, so far as there was one, had therefore been discovered, and Gold has no claim to it. His success must depend…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Miller v. Eagle Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Kelley v. BoettcherCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1898
- The Suffolk Company v. HaydenSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
- Parker & Whipple Co. v. Yale Clock Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Ide v. Trorlicht, Duncker & Renard Carpet Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1902
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Gillons v. Shell Co. of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1936
- Vapor Car Heating Co. v. Gold Car Heating & Lighting Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1925
- Gibbs v. Montgomery Ward & Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1927
- Ingersoll v. Delaware & Hudson Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
- In Re MuskatCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1951
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.