Legal Opinion
Monarch Marking System Co. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided June 3, 1937No. 7146-7149PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HICKS, Circuit Judge.
The Monarch Marking System Company (herein called Monarch) brought suits against Dennison Manufacturing Company (herein called Dennison), as manufacturer, and the May Company, as user, of certain alleged infringing machines. Since the suits involved the same issues and Dennison defended both, by agreement, the cases were tried upon a single record.
Monarch sued as* assignee-owner on: (1) Claims 2, 6, 20, 21, 22, 24, and 27 of Tily and Rehfuss patent No. 1,326,806, December 30, 1919; (2) claims 1, 3, 4, and 5 of Kohnle patent No. 1,528,023, March 3, 1925; and (3) claims 1,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Cochrane v. DeenerSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Roberts v. RyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Hildreth v. MastorasSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Frederick R. Stearns & Co. v. RussellCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1898
- Directoplate Corp. v. Donaldson Lithographing Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1931
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- France Mfg. Co. v. Jefferson Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1939
- Lincoln Stores, Inc. v. Nashua Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1946
- In re SchlittlerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1956
- Carboline Company v. Mobil Oil CorporationDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1969
- Hercules Inc. v. Exxon Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1980
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.