Otis Elevator Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Davis-Bournonville Co. v. Alexander Milburn Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1924)
- Lemley v. Dobson-Evans Co. (6th Cir. 1917)
- National Tube Co. v. Steel & Tubes, Inc. (3d Cir. 1937)
- Steel & Tubes, Inc. v. Clayton Mark & Co. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1937)
- Steel & Tubes, Inc. v. National Tube Co. (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1935)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The decree is affirmed, upon the opinion of Judge Hunt.
On Petition for Reave to Amend Decree.
Petition for le.ave to apply to District Court to amend decree finding infringement and ordering accounting, which decree was recently affirmed by this court.
W. Clyde Jones and Arthur B. Seibold, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellants.
PER CURIAM. It was proved to the satisfaction of the District Court and of this court that the Cutler-IIammer Company had made and sold controllers like Exhibit F and that such controllers infringed the patent, hinder the present decree, in the opinion of a majority of the court,, complainant is entitled to profits and damages, if it can prove any, on account of all such controllers — -i. e., controllers like Exhibit P— down to the accounting, whether they were sold to the In-terborough Company or to anybody else. It is unnecessary to amend the decree in order to give complainant any further relief, and therefore the motion for leave to apply for amendment to the District Court is denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.