Legal Opinion
Amalgamated Dental Co. v. Lang Dental Mfg. Co.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided November 2, 1961No. 57 C 1130PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ROBSON, District Judge.
A separate trial was had on the issue of laches raised by Paragraph XVII of defendant’s answer.1 After a careful study of the evidence and of the controlling precedent, the Court concludes that plaintiffs have not been guilty of laches, and that they took no action calculated to mislead defendant, upon which it relied to its prejudice.
The Wilding patent No. 2,249,694, in suit, concerns a material for taking dental impressions. Judge Barnes (in No. 48 C 505, The Amalgamated Dental Co., *815Ltd. and The L. D. Caulk Co. v. The William Getz Corporation and Wallace A. Erickson &…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Speidel v. HenriciSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Harrisons & Crosfield, LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953
- Dwight & Lloyd Sintering Co. v. GreenawaltCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
- Gillons v. Shell Co. of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1936
- France Mfg. Co. v. Jefferson Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1939
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Ritter v. Rohm & Haas CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1967
- Armstrong v. Motorola, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1964
- Blanchard v. Texsteam Corp.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1964