United Engineering & Foundry Co. v. Cold Metal Process Co.
| Decision Date | 03 January 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 5233.,5233. |
| Citation | 68 F.2d 564 |
| Parties | UNITED ENGINEERING & FOUNDRY CO. v. COLD METAL PROCESS CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
A. Leo Weil and J. Smith Christy, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., Melville Church, of Washington, D. C., and Jo. Baily Brown and Paul N. Critchlow, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
Byrnes, Stebbins, Parmelee & Blenko, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, and John J. Heard, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Thomas G. Haight, of Jersey City, N. J., for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
In the court below the Cold Metal Process Company, hereafter called plaintiff, assignee and owner of patent No. 1,779,195, granted October 21, 1930, to Abram Steckel for method and apparatus for rolling thin sheetlike metal, filed a bill against the United Engineering & Foundry Company, hereafter called defendant, and therein alleged defendant had infringed such patent "by wrongfully and without license making and selling rolling mills embodying the invention of certain of the claims of the above recited letters patent." The bill prayed for the usual injunction relief. In due course United's answer raised two defenses, first, that the patent was invalid; second, that, if valid, the plaintiff had granted it a patent license. We here note plaintiff thereupon petitioned the court to first try out the question of the existence of a license, but defendant objected thereto, and such objection was heard and determined by the court in accord with defendant's contention. Thereafter proofs were taken, and, after final hearing, the court filed an opinion in which it stated: Thereafter the court entered its decree, viz.: "And now, to wit, this 9th day of January, 1933, this cause came on to be heard at this term, and was argued by counsel, and thereupon, upon consideration thereof, it was ordered, adjudged, and decreed as follows, viz.: That the bill be dismissed at the costs of the plaintiff." From such decree dismissing its bill the plaintiff took no appeal. The defendant appealed, and its pertinent assignment of error is: "The Court erred in dismissing plaintiff's bill of complaint, without qualification, because, while on its face said decree purports to be wholly in defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engineer. & Fdry. Co.
...to a license under it. Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engineering & Foundry Co., D.C.1933, 3 F. Supp. 120, appeal dismissed, 3 Cir., 1934, 68 F.2d 564, certiorari denied 291 U.S. 675, 54 S.Ct. 530, 78 L.Ed. 1064. On November 17, 1934 the present suit in equity (No. 2991) was instituted by......
-
Cold Metal Process Company v. Republic Steel Corp.
...claims is strengthened by the fact that the patents have been upheld in previous adjudications. Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engineering & Foundry Co., supra, 3 Cir., 68 F.2d 564; certiorari denied, 291 U.S. 675, 54 S.Ct. 530, 78 L.Ed. 1064. Cold Metal Process Co. v. American Sheet & Ti......
-
Cold Metal Process Company v. EW Bliss Company, 13994-13997.
...Corp., 6 Cir., 170 F.2d 369; Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engineering & Foundry Co., D.C.W.D.Pa., 3 F.Supp. 120, appeal dismissed, 3 Cir., 68 F.2d 564, certiorari denied 291 U.S. 675, 54 S.Ct. 530, 78 L.Ed. 1064; Cold Metal Process Co. v. American Sheet & Tin Plate Co., D.C.N.J., 22 F.S......
-
EW Bliss Company v. Cold Metal Process Company
...and Cold Metal. In Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engineering & Foundry Co., D.C.W.D. Pa.1933, 3 F.Supp. 120, appeal dismissed 3 Cir., 1934, 68 F.2d 564, United was charged with infringing the '195 patent. The court held the license agreement of June 20, 1927, was a valid and subsisting c......