1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 23 F.Supp.
  5. 23 F.Supp. 805 (1938)
 

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. v. YABLONSKY

23 F.Supp. 805 (1938)

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. v. YABLONSKY et al.

District Court, D. New Jersey.

May 26, 1938.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Howson & Howson, of New York City (Hubert Howson, Merrell E. Clark, and Alexander C. Neave, all of New York City, and John H. Anderson, of Cleveland, Ohio, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Paul J. Christiansen, of Newark, N. J. Angelo M. Pisarra, of Newark, N. J., and Francis J. Pisarra, of Bartlesville, Okl., of counsel), for defendants.

CLARK, District Judge.

The usual issue of anticipation by prior patents. The art, if it may be called an art, is the placing (positioning in the jargon of patent solicitors and their specifications) of electric light filaments for effective highway reflection.

The pertinent principle of physics is conceded:

"Conversely, when a wave originates at the focus of a parabolic mirror it is reflected as a rigorously plane wave, that is, as a parallel beam...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases