Wabash Corp. v. Ross Electric Corp.

187 F.2d 577
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedFebruary 21, 1951
Docket21714_1
StatusPublished
Cited by37 cases

This text of 187 F.2d 577 (Wabash Corp. v. Ross Electric 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
Wabash Corp. v. Ross Electric Corp., 187 F.2d 577 (2d Cir. 1951).

Opinions

AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judge.

The facts in this case have been fully set forth in the opinion of Judge CHASE. I differ with him only in so far as he would hold the product patent valid. Judge Frank and I have been unable to discover any patentable invention in the plaintiffs’ product. The Ostermeier, van Liempt and Crowley Patents taught the art enough to defeat the claims of the product patent relied on. In the first, a metallic foil was used; in the second, a metallic wire; and in the third, metallic wool. The only thing that remained was to fill the entire bulb with the wire for, given that, the filling would normally be undulating, serpentine, and elastic. If there was any invention in either of the patents in suit, it was in the mode of blowing the wire into the bulb with a stream of controlled air. The defendants failed to adopt the precise mode called for in the process patent and thus did not literally infringe. But the plaintiffs argue that they, as the first to use air for filling flash bulbs, should be entitled to a broad range of equivalents. Nevertheless, we all agree that these differences between the plaintiffs’ process and the defendants’ are sufficient to prevent a decree for infringement in what seems to be a narrow field of invention. Accordingly the process patent is held not infringed, and the decree of the District Court dismissing the action as to it is affirmed; the product patent is held void for lack of invention and the decree sustaining it, and holding it infringed, is reversed.

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

Related

Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Eastern Fine Paper, Inc.
559 F. Supp. 815 (D. Maine, 1981)
Koppers Co. v. S & S Corrugated Paper Machinery Co.
367 F. Supp. 55 (E.D. New York, 1973)
United States v. Eugene R. Frazier
476 F.2d 891 (D.C. Circuit, 1973)
Ritter v. Rohm & Haas Company
271 F. Supp. 313 (S.D. New York, 1967)
M. O. S. Corporation v. John I. Haas Co., Inc.
375 F.2d 614 (Ninth Circuit, 1967)
Lank v. Steiner
224 A.2d 242 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1966)
TURBO MACHINE COMPANY v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc.
241 F. Supp. 723 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1965)
Mohasco Industries, Inc. v. E. T. Barwick Mills, Inc.
221 F. Supp. 191 (N.D. Georgia, 1963)
Marvel Specialty Co. v. Bell Hosiery Mills, Inc.
216 F. Supp. 824 (W.D. North Carolina, 1963)
Smith-Blair, Inc. v. R. H. Baker & Co.
232 F. Supp. 484 (S.D. California, 1962)
Langdon v. Saltser & Weinsier, Inc.
175 F. Supp. 96 (E.D. New York, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
187 F.2d 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wabash-corp-v-ross-electric-corp-ca2-1951.