Legal Opinion
Yablick v. Protecto Safety Appliance Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided September 13, 1927No. 3565PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DAVIS, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from two decrees of the District Court. The first decree dismissed the hill of complaint on the ground that United States letters patent No. 1,559,980, issued November 3, 1925, to George St. J. Perrott and Max Yablick are invalid, and the second denied a motion for leave to file a supplemental bill and bring before the court newly discovered evidence.
The patent relates to the treatment of air laden with ammonia so as to render it suitable for breathing. All ten claims of the patent are in issue except the fifth. The first and seeond claims are typical.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. HydeSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Naylor v. Alsop Process Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1909
- Van Heusen Products, Inc. v. Earl & WilsonDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1924
- Low v. McMasterCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1920
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- National Latex Products Company v. Sun Rubber Company, Akron Presform Mold Company v. Sun Rubber CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1960
- Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp. v. Tatnall Measuring Systems Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1958
- Griffith Rubber Mills, a Corporation v. Henry S. HoffarCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963
- Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corporation v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1938
- Continental Can Company, Inc. v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1969
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.