Legal Opinion
McCabe & Schoenholz, Inc. v. Frank J. Quigan, Inc.
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided December 17, 1929No. 4631PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GALSTON, District Judge.
The plaintiff moves that the counterclaim set up in the answer be stricken out on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction and because the / counterclaim on its face is insufficient to constitute a valid eause of action in equity.
It will be necessary to consider only the former ground.
The action is one for the infringement of letters patent. The counterclaim alleges unwarranted notices of infringement. It is alleged that these notices set forth an improper .construction of the scope of the alleged invention; and that the plaintiff, through its officers, endeavored…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- American Mills Co. v. American Surety Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Electric Boat Co. v. Lake Torpedo Boat Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1914
- Frankart, Inc. v. Metal Lamp CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1929
- Folberth Auto Specialty v. Trico Products Corp.District Court, W.D. New York · 1925
3Cited by5 opinions
- Kaumagraph Co. v. General Trade Mark CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1935
- Borne Scrymser Co. v. Gaffney Mfg. Co.District Court, W.D. South Carolina · 1933
- General Electric Co. v. Fan-Steel Products Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1931
- Universal Radiator Products Co. v. Craftsman Radiator Enclosure Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1933
- Universal Radiator Products Co. v. Craftsman Radiator Enclosure Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1932