UNITED GAS PIPE LINE CO.

v.

MOBILE GAS SERVICE CORP. ET AL.; AND FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. MOBILE GAS SERVICE CORP.

Citator

Cited By

• United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Serv. Corp., 350 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1956)
  …s of the contract rate. 215 F. 2d 883. Both the Commission and United, which had intervened in the Court of Appeals, petitioned for certiorari, which we granted because of the importance of this question in the administration of the Natural Gas Act. 348 U. S. 950. For the reasons discussed below, we hold that the Natural Gas Act does not give natural gas companies the right to change their rate contracts by their own unilateral action. The question presented is solely one of the proper interpretation of the…
• Pratt & Whitney Co., Inc. v. The United States, 345 F.2d 838 (Ct. Cl. 1965)
  …stitutes an unlawful attempt to extend the monopoly defined by the ’036 patent claims and is void. This accords with the decision of this court in Davis Airfoils, Inc. v. United States, 124 F.Supp. 350, 352, 129 Ct.Cl. 514, 517 (1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 950, 75 S.Ct. 437, 99 L.Ed. 742 (1954), in which it was stated that: “Where an inventor subsequently receives a second patent in which the monopoly expressed in the claim or claims is the same as that covered by the first patent, even though the phrase…
• United States v. Sears, 425 F.2d 231 (5th Cir. 1970)
  …r. 1969, 409 F. 2d 804, Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F. 2d 526, Part I. . Cox v. United States, 332 U.S. 442, 68 S.Ct. 115, 92 L.Ed. 59 (1947); Tamblyn v. United States, 216 F. 2d 345 (5th Cir. 1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 950, 75 S.Ct. 437, 99 L.Ed. 742 (1955). . See DuVernay v. United States, 394 F. 2d 979 (5th Cir. 1968), aff’d by an equally divided Court, 394 U.S. 309, 89 S.Ct. 1186, 22 L.Ed.2d 306 (1969).…