CHICAGO PNEUMATIC TOOL CO.

v.

HUGHES TOOL CO.

Citator

Cited By (34 total)

• Webster Bivens v. SIX Unknown Named Agents OF the Fed. Bureau OF Narcotics, 456 F.2d 1339 (2d Cir. 1972)
  …tted by law to their control and supervision. 332 F. 2d at 861-862. The dissenting judge believed that the acts complained of could not be within the defendants’ scope of authority.4 Cooper v. O’Connor, 69 App.D.C. 100, 99 F. 2d 135, cert. denied, 305 U.S. 643, 59 S.Ct. 146, 83 L.Ed. 414 (1938), involved an action against several federal officials, including a Special Agent of the FBI, for malicious prosecution. All defendants were held to be immune from suit because they were acting within the scope of t…
• Autogiro Co. of Am. v. The United States, 384 F.2d 391 (Ct. Cl. 1967)
  …2d 838, 170 Ct.Cl. 829 (1965); Dwyer v. United States, 357 F. 2d 978, 174 Ct.Cl. 1064 (1966); Badowski v. United States, 140 F.Supp. 544, 135 Ct.Cl. 93 (1956); Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Hughes Tool Co., 97 F. 2d 945 (10th Cir. 1938) cert. denied 305 U.S. 643, 59 S.Ct. 146, 83 L.Ed. 415; Powder Power Tool Corp. v. Powder Actuated Tool Co., Inc., 230 F. 2d 409 (7th Cir. 1956). . “Autogiro” was coined by the inventor, Juan de la Cierva, as a proprietary name. When spelled with a lower case a, it is used a…
• McCULLOUGH Tool Co. v. Well Surveys, Inc., 343 F.2d 381 (10th Cir. 1965)
  …t mode which is conceived to be the best for putting it into practical use and where that has been done the patent is not confined to the precise mode outlined. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Hughes Tool Co., 10 Cir., 97 F. 2d 945, 946, cert. denied, 305 U.S. 643, 59 S.Ct. 146, 83 L.Ed. 415; Pursche v. Atlas Scraper and Engineering Co., 9 Cir., 300 F. 2d 467, cert. denied, 371 U.S. 911, 83 S.Ct. 251, 9 L.Ed.2d 170. The patent in suit clearly meets this test and it is obvious from an examination of the file w…