Schutte & Koerting Co. v. Wheeler Condenser & EngineerIng Co.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
DICKINSON, District Judge.
The action is in assumpsit by the licensor against.the licensee of a patent for agreed royalties. The defense set up is broadly failure of consideration. This, however, expresses the nature of the real controversy neither fully nor accurately. The issue sought to be raised is best disclosed by a short fact statement.
*159Plaintiff was the owner by assignment of letters patent, No. 968,926 for “multi-stage vacuaters.” On June 27, 1918, it granted to defendant “the sole right to manufacture,'sell, and use,” in consideration of defendant’s agreement to pay to plaintiff a…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- United States v. Harvey Steel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1905
- St. Paul Plow Works v. StarlingSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Siemens-Halske Electric Co. v. Duncan Electric Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1905
- Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Finley Rubber Tire Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia · 1902
- Pope Manuf'g Co. v. OwsleyUnited States Circuit Court · 1886
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Automatic Radio Mfg. Co. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1949
- The Armstrong Co. v. Shell Co. of Cal.California Court of Appeal · 1929
- Miller v. O. B. McClintock Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1941
- Lathrop v. Rice & Adams CorporationDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1936
- Frost Ry. Supply Co. v. T. H. Symington & Son, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 1938
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.