Legal Opinion
Hartford-Empire Co. v. Swindell Bros.
District Court, D. Maryland
Decided January 30, 1937No. 2278PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CHESNUT, District Judge.
The three patents involved in this equity suit all relate to the annealing of glassware, and more particularly hollow glassware, such as bottles. Annealing is a process of heating and cooling. The pleadings in fact present for consideration six of the plaintiff’s patents but counsel have agreed to rest the case upon three and to limit the number of claims in each to those hereinafter enumerated. The three patents and the particular claims thereunder for consideration are as follows: Mulholland reissue, No. 17,263, April 9, 1929, claims Nos. 2, 7, 44, 49, 50, and 52 to…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Menendez v. HoltSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. WintersSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hartford-Empire Co. v. Swindell Bros.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1938
- Freedman & Slater, Inc. v. M. v. TofevoDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1963