Legal Opinion

Dowse v. Federal Rubber Co.

District Court, N.D. Illinois

Decided December 6, 1918No. 973PublishedCited by 23 opinions

In Equity. Suit by Byron C. Dowse against the Federal Rubber Company and others.

1Opinion of the Court

SANBORN, District Judge.

There are three defendants, the Federal Rubber Manufacturing Company, a Wisconsin corporation, formerly located at Cudahy, Wis., the P'ederal Rubber Company, a Massachusetts corporation, which succeeded to the manufacturing company, and the Federal Rubber Company of Illinois, the selling agent of both the other corporations successively. The latter was the only original defendant; the others being later brought in.

The suit involves both the validity and ownership of patent No. 1,174,238, of March 7, 1916, issued to B. C. Dowse, upon a method of reinforcing automobile…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Cantrell v. WallickSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Solomons v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
  3. Dalzell v. Dueber Watch Case Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
  4. Hapgood v. HewittSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  5. American Stoker Co. v. Underfeed Stoker Co. of AmericaU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania · 1910

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Edwards v. Gramling Engineering Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1991
  2. Davis v. Alwac International, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1963
  3. Standard Brands Inc. v. U. S. Partition & Packaging Corp.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1961
  4. Daniel Orifice Fitting Co. v. WhalenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
  5. Holcomb Health Care Services, LLC v. Quart Limited, LLC (In Re Holcomb Health Care Services, LLC)United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2004

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API