United States Mitis Co. v. Midvale Steel Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
In Equity. Suit for infringement of letters patent No. 333,373> for a process for making iron and steel castings, granted to Carl Gustave Wittenstrom December 29, 1885. On final hearing.
1Opinion of the Court
ARCHBAL,D, District Judge.1
The process for making wrought iron and steel castings which is the subject of this suit was invented by Carl Gustave Wittenstrom, a Swede. It was patented in Great Britain, France, and Belgium, July 8, 1885, and in the United States December 29 of the same year, and, while the patent has now expired, it had not at the time suit was brought, and the complainants, who are the owners, are entitled to damages if it was infringed while it was in force. Chinnock v. Paterson, 112 Fed. 531, 50 C. C. A. 384. Infringement is denied, and the validity of the patent vigorously…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Eames v. AndrewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Chinnock v. Paterson, P. & S. Tel. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1902
- United States Mitis Co. v. Carnegie Steel Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania · 1898
- United States Mitis Co. v. Carnegie Steel Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania · 1898
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Naylor v. Alsop Process Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1909
- American Caramel Co. v. MillsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1907
- Son v. Pressed Steel Car Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1927
- Hyde v. Minerals Separation, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1914
- Wagner v. Corn Products Refining Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1928
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.