Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.
Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.
337 U.S. 910; 69 S. Ct. 1046; 93 L. Ed. 1722; 1949 U.S. LEXIS 3102
(United States Reports)
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision. The 21 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Hilton Davis Chemical Co. v. Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1995)
- People v. Gard (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)
- People v. Gacho (Ill. 1988)
- People v. Jones (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)
- People v. Richards (Ill. App. Ct. 1978)
- People v. Goodman (Ill. App. Ct. 1977)
- People v. Spenard (Ill. App. Ct. 1977)
- Rocform Corporation v. Acitelli-Standard Concrete Wall, Inc. (6th Cir. 1966)
- People v. Chambers (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)
- People v. Woods (Ill. App. Ct. 1984)
- People v. McEwen (Ill. App. Ct. 1982)
- Tights, Inc. v. The Honorable Edwin M. Stanley, Chief Judge, United States District Court Forthe Middle District of North Carolina (4th Cir. 1971)
- People v. Allen (Ill. App. Ct. 1969)
- Dimitri Kapsalis v. Lawrence E. Wilson, Warden, California State Prison, San Quentin, California (9th Cir. 1967)
- Popcorn-In-Oil Council, Inc. v. Wyndall's Super Market, Inc., and Hesmer Foods, Inc., Intervener (6th Cir. 1966)
- Toledo Scale Corporation v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. Toledo Scale Corporation (6th Cir. 1965)
- Parmelee Pharmaceutical Company, and William v. Consolazio v. Lawrence C. Zink, D/B/A Zink Safety Equipment Company (8th Cir. 1961)
- Union Carbide Corp. v. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. (7th Cir. 1960)
- United States of America Ex Rel. Harry Gordon Geach v. Joseph E. Ragen, Warden, Illinois State Penitentiary (7th Cir. 1956)
- Alabama v. United States (United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama 1956)
- Acme Steel Co. v. Eastern Venetian Blind Co. (District Court, D. Maryland 1955)
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 petition for rehearing is granted, limited to the question of infringement of Claims 18, 20,22 and 23 of the Jones et al. patent. The Court desires argument as to the applicability of
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.