Imperial Machine Co. v. United States

Court of Claims

Imperial Machine Co. v. United States

63 Ct. Cl. 512, 1927 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 283, 1927 WL 2890

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedMay 9, 1927

DocketNo. C-350

StatusPublished

This text of 63 Ct. Cl. 512 (Imperial Machine Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Imperial Machine Co. v. United States, 63 Ct. Cl. 512, 1927 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 283, 1927 WL 2890 (cc 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

GRaham, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is one of five cases between the same parties involving the validity and infringement of Letters Patent 809582 and 942932, the property of the plaintiff. The question of the validity of these patents has been discussed and passed upon in the opinion filed by the court in No. C-320, handed down this day (cunte, p. 491), so that it is unnecessary to consider this question again. Inasmuch as the court has found that there is no proof of infringement by purchase and use by the defendant it is unnecessary to consider the question of infringement. The petition should therefore be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

Moss, Judge; Hay, Judge; Booth, Judge; and Campbell, Chief Justice, concur.

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

GRaham, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is one of five cases between the same parties involving the validity and infringement of Letters Patent 809582 and 942932, the property of the plaintiff. The question of the validity of these patents has been discussed and passed upon in the opinion filed by the court in No. C-320, handed down this day (cunte, p. 491), so that it is unnecessary to consider this question again. Inasmuch as the court has found that there is no proof of infringement by purchase and use by the defendant it is unnecessary to consider the question of infringement. The petition should therefore be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

Moss, Judge; Hay, Judge; Booth, Judge; and Campbell, Chief Justice, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 Ct. Cl. 512, 1927 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 283, 1927 WL 2890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/imperial-machine-co-v-united-states-cc-1927.