Legal Opinion
Rosenbluth v. Hudson Motor Car Co.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided March 30, 1920No. 1997Published
In Equity. Suit by Edwin M. Rosenbluth against the Hudson Motor Car Company and others. On motion to set aside service as to the Hudson Motor Car Company.
1Opinion of the Court
TPIOMPSON, District Judge.
This is a suit for infringement of a patent. Section 48 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1030) provides that suit may be brought in any district in which the defendant ¿hall have committed acts of infringement and have a regular and established place of business. The hill states that the Pludson Motor Car Company is a corporation of the state of Michigan, doing business at 128 North Broad street, Philadelphia.
The Code further provides:
“If such, suit is brought in a district of which the defendant is not an inhabitant, but in which said defendant has a regular and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Mechanical Appliance Co. v. CastlemanSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Jackson v. Delaware River Amusement Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1904
- International Wireless Telegraph Co. v. FessendenU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1903
- Scott v. Stockholders' Oil Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1903