Legal Opinion
Ingersoll v. Bethlehem Steel Co.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided October 13, 1932No. Nos. 4645, 4647, 4649PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.
There are ten patents in suit, all relating to an auxiliary steam engine, commonly called a “booster,” designed to furnish additional driving power, when required, to a steam locomotive. For convenience they may be divided into two groups. Four patents, constituting the first group, have to do principally with the means by which the engineer controls the operation of the booster, and may be called control patents. The remaining six patents relate to the construction of various parts of the booster and are referred to as structural patents.
The Control Patents…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Seymour v. OsborneSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Eames v. AndrewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Cohn v. United States Corset Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Reo Motor Car Co. v. Gear Grinding MacH. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1930
- Wende v. HorineCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1915
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Maibohm v. RCA Victor Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1937