Legal Opinion
Monsanto Company v. Rohm and Haas Company
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided May 21, 1970No. Civ. A. 68-1269PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FINDINGS OF FACT, OPINION, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER.
MASTERSON, District Judge.
A. NATURE OF ACTION AND JURISDICTION
1. Plaintiff (hereinafter “Monsanto”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Defendant (hereinafter “Rohm and Haas”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Final Pre-Trial Order, p. I). 1
2. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States and this Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter thereof under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance MacHinery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food MacHinery & Chemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Rohm and Haas Company v. Crystal Chemical Company and Joe C. EllerCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Monsanto Company v. Rohm & Haas CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1972
- Xerox Corporation v. Dennison Manufacturing CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1971
- Eli Lilly & Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.