Legal Opinion
B. F. Sturtevant Co. v. Massachusetts Hair & Felt Co.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Decided December 15, 1941No. 3644, 3645PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WOODBURY, Circuit Judge.
On petition for rehearing the defendant contends that we fell into plain error in eight respects. In its brief in support of this motion it states its first contention as follows : “Claim 2 of the first Hagen patent is invalid because although Hagen’s invention resided mainly in the design and arrangement of the vanes, he nevertheless claimed the old combination of a constant speed motor, a fan and vanes for controlling fan output.” In support of this proposition the defendant cites the cases of Bassick Mfg. Co. v. R. M. Hollingshead Co., 298 U.S. 415, 56 S.Ct. 787, 80…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Bassick Mfg. Co. v. RM Hollingshead Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Bassick Manufacturing Co. v. R. M. Hollingshead Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- B. F. Sturtevant Co. v. Massachusetts Hair & Felt Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1941
- McCreery Engineering Co. v. Massachusetts Fan Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1912
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik Ag v. Murata MacHinery Ltd., and Murata of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Timely Products Corporation, Raphael J. Costanzo v. Stanley ArronCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
- The Robbins Company v. Lawrence Manufacturing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1973
- Philco Corporation v. Admiral CorporationDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1961
- Digital Equipment Corporation v. Sidney A. Diamond, Etc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1981
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.