Legal Opinion
Armstrong Cork Co. v. Congoleum Industries, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided June 27, 1975No. Civ. A. 73-18PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FINDINGS OF FACT, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
HANNUM, District Judge.
This cause tried to the Court without a jury is submitted by plaintiff, Armstrong Cork Company (hereinafter Armstrong) for a declaratory judgment that its chemically embossed foamed vinyl floor covering process and products using lauroyl peroxide do not infringe United States Letters Patents No. 3,293,094 and No. 3,293,108 (hereinafter ’094 and ’108 respectively) owned by defendant, Congoleum Industries, Inc., (hereinafter Congoleum), and by defendant’s counter-claim that said process and products do infringe…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Georgia-Pacific Corporation v. United States Plywood CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1958
- Cammeyer v. NewtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Canaan Products, Inc. v. Edward Don & Company, John Sexton & Company, American Hospital Supply, Corp., North Central Airlines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1968
- Jewell W. Vanderveer v. Erie Malleable Iron CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1956
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Congoleum Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1979
- Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Congoleum Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1979