Legal Opinion
Lindly & Co. v. Karl H. Inderfurth Co.
District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Decided January 18, 1961No. Civ. No. 1202PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BUTLER, District Judge.
This is an action for patent infringement relating to a yarn tensioning device. The determinative question is whether venue is properly laid in the Eastern District of North Carolina.
The plaintiff, Lindly and Company, Inc., is hereinafter referred to as “Lindly”, and the defendants, Karl H. Inder-furth Company, Fabrionics Corporation, and Telephonies Corporation, are hereinafter referred to as “Inderfurth”, “Fab-rionics”, and “Telephonies”, respectively.
This is the third in a series of lawsuits involving the parties to this action, each of which is pending in a…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Hoffman v. BlaskiSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Ronson Art Metal Works, Inc. v. Brown & Bigelow, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1952
- Bradford Novelty Co. v. ManheimDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1957
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- L. D. Schreiber Cheese Co. v. Clearfield Cheese Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1980
- Telephonics Corp. v. Lindly & Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1960