Legal Opinion

Aerovox Corp. v. Cornell-Dubilier Corp.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided January 8, 1940No. 123PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

L. HAND, Circuit Judge.

Claims six, seven and eight were in the original patent; nine, ten, eleven and fourteen were added by reissue; all are for a process of making an electrolytic condenser. The plaintiff’s processes, which are said to infringe these claims, are four in number, and the first three are precisely the same as to the mix for the electrolyte, which is about 43%. ethylene glycol, 47%% boric acid, and 9%% aqua ammonia (26% C. P.). The plaintiff heats this under atmospheric pressure until it becomes a clear solution at between 230° and 240° F. It then immerses the rolled condenser…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Aerovox Corp. v. Micamold Radio Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1937

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. E. J. Brooks Co. v. KleinCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1940
  2. National Welding Equipment Co. v. Hammon Precision Equipment Co.District Court, N.D. California · 1958

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

Powered by the Exa API