GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
v.
PARR ELECTRIC CO., INC.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
PARR ELECTRIC CO., INC.
99 F.2d 827
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1938)
Negative Treatment
Cited by 10 cases
Opinion of the Court
The decree of the district court is modified.
(dissenting).
In my opinion the decree should be affirmed. I believe that the claim is too indefinite to be valid under the doctrine of General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 58 S.Ct. 899, 82 L.Ed. 1402. I think also that the Carlson fan is an anticipation.
Dissent
SWAN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
In my opinion the decree should be affirmed. I believe that the claim is too indefinite to be valid under the doctrine of General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 58 S.Ct. 899, 82 L.Ed. 1402. I think also that the Carlson fan is an anticipation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Assocs. Commercial Corp., 721 F.2d 1094 (7th Cir. 1983)
-
United States v. Jersey Shore State Bank, 781 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1986)
-
United States v. Erie Forge Co., 191 F.2d 627 (3d Cir. 1951)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1938)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Parr Elec. Co., Inc., 98 F.2d 60 (2d Cir. 1938)