Defendant
1 case as defendant.
Company overview. A. Fulton's Son & Co. was a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania bell and brass foundry. The underlying business was originated in 1832 by Andrew Fulton, Sr., who cast the first bell west of the Allegheny Mountains; the firm's trade styles ran Andrew Fulton (1832), Andrew Fulton & Sons (1866), and A. Fulton's Son & Co. (from about 1871), before becoming Chaplin-Fulton, Ltd. (1884) and Chaplin-Fulton Manufacturing Co. (1891). It was family-owned and privately held throughout; no public ticker, modern employee count, or revenue figure exists. Period trade directories place its works at 70 Second Avenue and 91 First Avenue, employing roughly 25 mechanics, per the Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce's Industries of Pittsburgh.
Products / operations. It was an operating manufacturer, not a patent-holding shell. Its specialty was casting bells, which it sold across the United States and overseas; it also produced brass castings, copper and brass steam fittings, and gauges for the river-steamboat trade, and the Fulton principals obtained patents on devices such as a steam water heater and a rotary bell fixture. The successor firm later moved into gas governors, regulators, and steam specialties after transitioning away from foundry and river-craft work.
Patent-litigation posture. The tracked record shows one case, with the company as defendant and none as plaintiff — consistent with an operating manufacturer being sued, not an asserter. J. B. Sheriff & Son v. A. Fulton's Son & Co. was an equity action in the U.S. Circuit Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Circuit Courts were abolished in 1912, so the suit is 19th-century). No NPE or venue-clustering pattern applies. The plaintiff, J. B. Sheriff & Son (trading 1875–1882), was itself a Pittsburgh brass foundry and coppersmith serving the river trade, later Tranter Manufacturing Company.
Context. The dispute therefore appears to be a historical, local patent/equity contest between two competing Pittsburgh brass and bell foundries. Beyond the case name and forum, the structured data include no filings, claims, or outcome, and I could not verify the subject matter or disposition; nothing should be inferred about the merits.
1882 equity suit brought on Reissue No. 9,199, the reissue of original US Patent 110,205, against A. Fulton's Son & Co. The court held the reissue invalid for unreasonable delay because the reissue application enlarged the original claim after nine years, so the infringement action failed.