Legal Opinion

Malignani v. Hill-Wright Electric Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided February 17, 1910PublishedCited by 7 opinions

In Equity. Suit by Arturio Malignani and the General Electric Company against the Hill-Wright Electric Company. On final hearing.

1Opinion of the Court

HAZEL, District Judge.

The complainants, who are respectively the patentee and licensee of the patent herein involved, charge the defendant with infringement of claim 1 thereof, which letters patent No. 537,693 were granted April 16, 1895, to Arturio Malignani -for process of evacuating incandescent lamps. Prior to the issuance of the patent, on February 10, 1894, an Italian patent for the same invention was granted to the patentee. Said United States patent has been sustained by the Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey (Malignani v. Germania Electric Lamp Co. [C. C.] 169 Fed. 299),…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
  2. Devlin v. PaynterCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1894
  3. Union Typewriter Co. v. L. C. Smith & Bros.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania · 1909
  4. Waterman v. ShipmanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1893
  5. United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Duplessis Shoe Machinery Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1907

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Craft-Stone, Inc. v. Zenitherm Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1927
  2. Permutit Co. v. Harvey Laundry Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 1921
  3. Los Angeles Lime Co. v. NyeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1921
  4. Malignani v. Jasper Marsh Consol. Electric Lamp Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1910
  5. Commercial Acetylene Co. v. SchroederCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1913

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API