Legal Opinion
Midland Ross Corp. v. Sunbeam Equipment Corp.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided May 20, 1971No. Civ. A. No. 14-71 EriePublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
KNOX, District Judge.
Two causes of action are set forth in this complaint. The first cause of action is for patent infringement and complains of a sale by the defendant in 1968 of a carburizing furnace installed in a Chrysler Corporation plant in Indianapolis, Indiana. It seeks damages for the infringement, counsel fees, costs and injunction against future infringement.
The second cause of action seeks an injunction against disclosing of trade secrets as a result of hiring by the defendant, Sunbeam, of co-defendant, Robert…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. WestoverSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Dairy Queen, Inc. v. WoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Ross v. BernhardSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Edward J. Kennedy, Henry Martinez, Herman Paprzycki and Dominick Stabilito v. Lakso Company, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1969
- Midland-Ross Corp. v. Sunbeam Equipment Corp.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1970
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Molinaro v. Watkins-Johnson CEI DivisionDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1973