Legal Opinion
Petersen v. Fee International, Ltd.
District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Decided March 29, 1974No. Civ. 72-181PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DAUGHERTY. Chief Judge.
Plaintiffs claim Defendants are guilty of patent infringement, false marking and unfair competition, the latter under both Federal and State Statutes. Plaintiffs claim to own U. S. Patent No. 3,555,939 (939) which Defendants are alleged to have infringed and U. S. Patent No. 3,368,432 (432) which patent number Defendants are alleged to have used in the false marking claim. 939 covers an open-end or “crescent” type wrench which is helix operated by a knob running up and down the handle, fendants’ contention that such an agreement was entered into which…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Lear, Inc. v. AdkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Brunswick Corp. v. Spinit Reel Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1987
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,441 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Geon Industries, Inc., Frank Bloom and Edwards & HanlyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976
- Monoflo International, Inc. v. SahmDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1989
- Baxa Corp. v. McGaw, Inc.District Court, D. Colorado · 1998
- Brunswick Corporation v. Spinit Reel CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1987