Hazeltine Corp. v. Radio Corp.

Second Circuit

Hazeltine Corp. v. Radio Corp.

59 F.2d 203, 14 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 31, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 3344

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 6, 1932

DocketNo. 429

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 59 F.2d 203 (Hazeltine Corp. v. Radio Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hazeltine Corp. v. Radio Corp., 59 F.2d 203, 14 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 31, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 3344 (2d Cir. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 16 were held to be infringed by the appellant’s manufacture and sale of its Radiolas Nos. 16 'and 17. The patent in suit was considered by us in Hazeltine Corp. v. Wildermuth, 34 F.(2d) 635, and held valid and there infringed.' The arguments now advanced, seeking to have this patent declared invalid, were considered by this court in the Wildermuth Case and also in Hazeltine Corp. v. Nat. Carbon Co., 47 F.(2d) 573; nothing now said requires us to depart from the conclusions which we reached in those appeals.

There is a very substantial plate circuit neutralization obtained by the appellants. Using the table as the neutralization obtainable and used by the appellant in its product, it substantially attains the percentage of electrical results of the capacity couplings 'which aré obtained by the.Hazeltine invention! The amount of that capacity of the tube is'about 8.1 mmf.' (micromicrofarads). Appellant obtains nearly that capacity in its use.

The decree is affirmed upon the authority of Hazeltine v. Nat. Carbon Co. (C. C. A.) 47 F.(2d) 573, and Hazeltine Corp. v. Wildermuth (C. C. A.) 34 F.(2d) 635.

Decree affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 16 were held to be infringed by the appellant’s manufacture and sale of its Radiolas Nos. 16 'and 17. The patent in suit was considered by us in Hazeltine Corp. v. Wildermuth, 34 F.(2d) 635, and held valid and there infringed.' The arguments now advanced, seeking to have this patent declared invalid, were considered by this court in the Wildermuth Case and also in Hazeltine Corp. v. Nat. Carbon Co., 47 F.(2d) 573; nothing now said requires us to depart from the conclusions which we reached in those appeals.

There is a very substantial plate circuit neutralization obtained by the appellants. Using the table as the neutralization obtainable and used by the appellant in its product, it substantially attains the percentage of electrical results of the capacity couplings 'which aré obtained by the.Hazeltine invention! The amount of that capacity of the tube is'about 8.1 mmf.' (micromicrofarads). Appellant obtains nearly that capacity in its use.

The decree is affirmed upon the authority of Hazeltine v. Nat. Carbon Co. (C. C. A.) 47 F.(2d) 573, and Hazeltine Corp. v. Wildermuth (C. C. A.) 34 F.(2d) 635.

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 F.2d 203, 14 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 31, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 3344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hazeltine-corp-v-radio-corp-ca2-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack