Legal Opinion
Bradley v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided April 30, 1948No. 5430PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PICARD, District Judge.
The main issue in this case is whether the Patent Office should have granted letters on the device involved, since it has been stipulated that if plaintiff has a patentable invention defendant has infringed on claims 4, 5 and 6.
There is in fact but one plaintiff, Weingarten, assignee of Tumham’s patent No. 2,242,408, who operates a chain of grocery stores in the state of Texas and was a pioneer in what we know today as the self-serve store — forerunner of the super-market.
History of the development of this species of business enterprise is desirable. One Saunders, back…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1901
- Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. WalkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Jamco, Incorporated, an Oklahoma Corporation, and A. D. Willkinson v. Theodore F. Carlson, and Carlson Manufacturing Co., a Colorado CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1959
- Oriental Foods, Inc. v. Chun King Sales, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1957
- Oxford Filing Supply Co. v. Globe-Wernicke Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1957
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.