Langmuir v. De Forest
Citation | 18 F.2d 345 |
Decision Date | 22 March 1927 |
Docket Number | No. 562.,562. |
Parties | LANGMUIR et al. v. DE FOREST et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
Samuel Owen Edmonds, of New York City, and Harry E. Dunham, of Schenectady, N. Y., and William G. Mahaffy, of Wilmington, Del., for plaintiffs.
Samuel E. Darby, Jr. (of Darby & Darby), of New York City, and E. Ennalls Berl, of Wilmington, Del., for defendants Lee De Forest and De Forest Radio Telephone & Telegraph Co.
William R. Ballard, of New York City, and Ward, Gray & Ward, of Wilmington, Del., for defendant American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
The subject-matter of this suit, brought under R. S. § 4915 (Comp. St. § 9460), by Irving Langmuir and General Electric Company against Lee De Forest, De Forest Radio Telephone & Telegraph Company, and American Telephone & Telegraph Company, is that defined in the counts constituting the issue in interferences Nos. 41,224 and 41,225 in the Patent Office. As a result of the decision of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia (298 Fed. 1006), counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of No. 41,224 were allowed as claims 29, 32, 35, 36, 1, 2, and 6 of De Forest patent No. 1,507,016. Counts 6 and 9 became claims 15 and 17 of De Forest patent No. 1,507,017. These counts, the first four of which are known as the "work circuit" counts and the last five as the "radio signaling" counts, read thus:
The two counts...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Leeds & Northrup Co. v. Doble Engineering Co.
...Parks & Bohne, 8 Cir., 21 F.2d 943, 946; Nye Tool & Machine Works v. Crown Die & Tool Co., 7 Cir., 292 F. 851, 853; Langmuir et al. v. DeForest et al., D.C., 18 F. 2d 345. These cases were all considered and followed by the Court of Customs and Patent Appeal in Braren v. Horner, 47 F.2d 358......