Legal Opinion

Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Neisner Bros.

District Court, N.D. Illinois

Decided July 26, 1954PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

This is a suit for injunctive relief and damages for an alleged infringement of Patent No. 2,177,627, issued to plaintiff on the application of one Richard G. Drew. The patent relates to a transparent, pressure-sensitive adhesive tape, known commercially as “Scotch” brand cellophane tape. The accused tape is manufactured in Sombra, Ontario, Canada, by William J. Dahm and Essie Eileen Dahm, and is known as “Edaplast” cellophane tape.

The suit was originally brought, against one defendant, Neisner Brothers, Inc., which sold Edaplast cellophane tape-within the United…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. United Mine Workers of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. International Plastic Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1947
  3. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Pax Plastics Corp.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1946
  4. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Neisner Bros.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1951

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Technical Tape Corporation v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1957
  2. Technical Tape Corp. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1956
  3. Baltz v. Walgreen Co.District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 1961
  4. Dow Chemical Co. v. Chemical Cleaning, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1970
  5. The Dow Chemical Company v. Chemical Cleaning, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1970

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API