Legal Opinion
Philip A. Hunt Co. v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided October 28, 1949No. 10, Docket 21267PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
L. HAND, Circuit Judge.
Judge Byers has stated the facts in this cause with a completeness which makes unnecessary any restatement by us; his opinion is reported, 1 and we shall discuss the points raised upon the appeal, assuming an acquaintance with its contents. Moreover, we shall confine our discussion to whether the claims in suit are too broad, and whether the patent was forfeited by prior use. The plaintiff says that the claims are invalid because they are “functional,” and so Judge Byers held. In form that is not true, for they speak in definite terms, referable to the specifications.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. WalkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Holland Furniture Co. v. Perkins Glue Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Lavin v. PierottiCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1942
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., in No. 75-2405 v. Videfreeze Corporation, and David E. Chinnery Development Corp., Inno. 75-2406Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
- Georgia-Pacific Corporation v. United States Plywood CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1958
- The UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS FOUND. v. Block Drug Co.District Court, E.D. Illinois · 1955
- Ansul Company v. Uniroyal, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1969
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.