# Metropolitan Device Corp. v. Williamsburg Electric Supply Co.

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 2, 1927 · 19 F.2d 442

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6835072

## Case

- **Full name:** METROPOLITAN DEVICE CORPORATION v. WILLIAMSBURG ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** May 2, 1927
- **Citations:** 19 F.2d 442; 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2264
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hand
- **Judges:** Hand, Manton
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6835072

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding “the ALJ’s conclusions are not supported by substantial 20 evidence” when an RFC is formulated without the findings of a physician

## Opinion text

L. HAND, Circuit Judge
(dissenting in part). I dissent as to claim 3 of the first Palmer patent, which seems to me not infringed, so that I have not considered its validity. I think that the defendant has no channels *448 at all; certainly not four channels, each containing two terminals. Moreover, it seems to me that the claim demands that all the terminals of one series shall have contact surfaces, which they have not. I can see no room in such a patent for the doctrine of equivalents. Otherwise I concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6835072. Public record. Not legal advice.