Legal Opinion

Richard Irvin & Co. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Co.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided July 9, 1941No. 219PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Per curiam

It is clear that the defendant does not infringe the only claim in suit, No. 10. In the first place the purpose of the only parts of the A. B. Brake which are alleged to infringe was quite different. Heiniger’s pressure retaining valve was designed to keep pressure in the brake cylinder while pressure in the auxiliary reservoir was being built up. In the defendant’s brake an emergency application — in which phase alone the A. B. Brake is supposed to infringe — results in emptying the brake pipe line at once, and the delay in exhausting the brake cylinder is not in order to give time to build…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Electrical Fittings Corp. v. ThomasSupreme Court of the United States · 1939

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Landis MacHinery Co. v. Chaso Tool Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1944
  2. Western States Mach. Co. v. S. S. Hepworth Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
  3. International Carbonic Engineering Co. v. Natural Carbonic Products, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 1944
  4. W. F. & John Barnes Co. v. International Harvester Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1943
  5. Whitman v. Andrus. Andrus v. Whitman Besser Mfg. Co. v. WhitmanCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1952

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API