Case Name: ALLIS-CHALMERS CO. v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1912-02-06
Citations: 194 F. 414
Docket Number: No. 1,548
Parties: ALLIS-CHALMERS CO. v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
Judges: Before GRAY, BUFFINGTON, and LANNING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 194
Pages: 414–414

Head Matter:
ALLIS-CHALMERS CO. v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
February 6, 1912.)
No. 1,548.
Patents (§ 328*) — Validity and Infringement — Electrical Translating Device.
The Armstrong & Woodbridge patent, No. 726,391, for an electrical translating device, held not anticipated, valid, and infringed.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey.
Suit in equity by the General Electric Company against the Allis-Chalmers Company and others. Decree for complainant (190 Fed. 145), and defendant Allis-Chalmcrs Company appeals.
Affirmed.
See, also, 194 Fed. 413.
Edwards, Sager & Wooster, for Allis-Chalmers Co.
Betts, Sheffield, Bentley & Betts, for General Electric Co.
Before GRAY, BUFFINGTON, and LANNING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
In this case the General Electric Company, owner of patent No. 726,391, granted April 28, 1903, to Armstrong and Woodbridge, for means for varying delta-connected voltages, brought suit against the Allis-Chalmers Company charging infringement of the first claim thereof. The case was heard on full proofs, and a decree was entered holding said claim valid and infringed. The lower court, in its opinion reported at 190 Fed. 145, exhaustively described and discussed the device involved, its relation to the prior art, and an alleged prior use. No principles of law are involved, and the decisive questions turn on findings of fact. The case has again undergone full examination by this court, aided by the enlightening arguments of counsel. As we have found no error in the lower court's disposition of the case, we are of opinion that a restatement by this court in a second opinion would serve no useful purpose, and would unduly burden the reports, digests, and profession.
The decree is therefore affirmed, on the opinion of the court below.