Legal Opinion

Treibacher Chemische Werke Gesellschaft Mit Beschränkter Haftung v. Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided February 18, 1914No. 6/236PublishedCited by 4 opinions

In Equity. Suit by Treibacher Chemische Werke Gesellschaft mit Beschránkter Haftung against the Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Company, for infringement of patent 837,017 to Welsbach, issued November 27, 1906. On final hearing.

1Opinion of the Court

HOUGH, District Judge.

The only claim involved is this:

“A pyrophoric alloy, containing cerium, alloyed with iron; substantially as and for the purposes described.”

The “purposes described” in the specification render plain the contest before the court.

The patentee tells the world that all preceding investigators were wrong in supposing that the so-called “rare-earth” metals, when pure, possessed pyrophoric capacity; i. e., the property when abraded of giving off particles self-igniting in the air. Admittedly these metals, and especially cerium, had long been called pyrophoric, but Welsbach…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Winans v. DenmeadSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
  2. Groth v. International Postal Supply Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1894
  3. Edison Electric Light Co. v. Boston Incandescent Lamp Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1894

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Remington Cash Register Co. v. National Cash Register Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1925
  2. General Electric Co. v. AlexanderCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922
  3. Dennis v. PitnerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1939
  4. Oriental Tissue Co. v. Louis De Jonge & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1916

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API