Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Corporations
HAZELTINE CORPORATION v. RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA
59 F.2d 203·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1932
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
HAZELTINE CORPORATION v. RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA.
No. 429.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
June 6, 1932.
Charles Neave and Stephen H. Philbin, both of New York City, for appellant.
Pennie, Davis, Marvin & Edmonds, of New York City (William H. Davis and R. Morton Adams, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before MANTON, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges. .
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 16 were held to be infringed by the appellant’s manufacture and sale of its Radiolas Nos. 16 'and 17. The patent in suit was considered by us in Hazeltine Corp. v. Wildermuth, 34 F.(2d) 635, and held valid and there infringed.' The arguments now advanced, seeking to have this patent declared invalid, were considered by this court in the Wildermuth Case and also in Hazeltine Corp. v. Nat. Carbon Co., 47 F.(2d) 573; nothing now said requires us to depart from the conclusions which we reached in those appeals.
There is a very substantial plate circuit neutralization obtained by the appellants. Using the table as the neutralization obtainable and used by the appellant in its product, it substantially attains the percentage of electrical results of the capacity couplings 'which aré obtained by the.Hazeltine invention! The amount of that capacity of the tube is'about 8.1 mmf.' (micromicrofarads). Appellant obtains nearly that capacity in its use.
The decree is affirmed upon the authority of Hazeltine v. Nat. Carbon Co. (C. C. A.) 47 F.(2d) 573, and Hazeltine Corp. v. Wildermuth (C. C. A.) 34 F.(2d) 635.
Decree affirmed.