Legal Opinion

Ingersoll v. Delaware & Hudson Co.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided January 13, 1930No. 78PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MANTON, Circuit Judge.

The District Court found elaim 32 of the patent to Ingersoll, No. 1,339,395, claims 16 and 17 of Ingersoll patent, No. 1,383,633, and claims 16,17, and 21 of Ingersoll patent, No. 1,547,-155, valid and infringed in these suits for infringement of four patents. There were a number of other claims sued on, but, since the plaintiffs have not appealed from the dis-allowance of such claims as infringed, it is unnecessary to consider them here.

The patents relate to improvements in, auxiliary or booster engines used to aid railroad locomotives in starting, or while running at…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
  2. Miller v. Eagle Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
  3. Morgan v. DanielsSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  4. Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
  5. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1880

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Allied Metal Stamping Co. v. Standard Electric Equipment Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 1932
  2. Faries Mfg. Co. v. S. W. Farber Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
  3. Kaplan v. RobertsonDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1931
  4. Freeman v. Premier Mach. Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1935
  5. Doughnut Mach. Corp. v. Demco, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 1931

3 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