Hazeltine Corporation v. Radio Corporation
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
WOOLSEY, District Judge.
The plaintiff has withdrawn its first three exceptions.
Its other exceptions, Nos. 4-21, are all overruled, and the special master’s recommendation that there should not be an accounting herein is hereby approved and adopted.
The defendant’s exceptions, owing to the special master’s decision in its favor and my adoption thereof, now raise merely moot questions and will not be considered.
I. Revised Statutes § 4900, as amended February 7, 1927, c. 67, 44 Stat. 1058, title 35 United States Code § 49 (35 U.S.C.A. § 49), first imposes a duty on patentees and those in privity…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Dunlap v. SchofieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Western Electric Co. v. Pacent Reproducer CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
- Marsh v. Nichols, Shepard & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Wine Railway Appliance Co. v. Enterprise Railway Equipment Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Hazeltine Corporation v. Radio Corporation of AmericaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1931
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- American Medical Systems, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Medical Engineering CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- Basevi v. Edward O'Toole Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1939
- Cybiotronics, Ltd. v. Golden Source Electronics, Ltd.District Court, C.D. California · 2001
- Von Holdt v. A-1 Tool Corp.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2010
- In Re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation (No. II)District Court, W.D. North Carolina · 1984
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.