Legal Opinion
David Belais, Inc. v. Goldsmith Bros. Smelting & Refining Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided March 1, 1926No. 247PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Through his counsel, plaintiff thus summarizes his invention: “The claim is for a ternary alloy, composed of three metals only in substantial quantities.” The patented alloy has a name; it is called “white gold.” But the name as is substantially admitted, even in the disclosure, is old; and the evidence is clear that for many years white gold has been a well-known alloy used by jewelers. Most of it was “14 karat,” a cheaper product, while the alloy at bar is “18 karat”; but the evidence is also clear that white gold of that grade of fineness was not a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Smith v. NicholsSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- American Stainless Steel Co. v. Ludlum Steel Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923
- Brady Brass Co. v. Ajax Metal Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1908
- Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Churchward International Steel Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1920
- Boston Pencil Pointer Co. v. Automatic Pencil Sharpener Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1956
- Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1938
- Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co. v. Celanese Corp. of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1943
- Tolfree v. WetzlerDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1927
- Greene Process Metal Co. v. Washington Iron WorksCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1936
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.