Legal Opinion
Dyotherm Corp. v. Turbo Machine Co.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided January 3, 1966No. Civ. A. No. 31984PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.
The issues raised by these motions stem from a contract entered into between the parties to this suit1 on July 25,1957, the purpose of which was to settle a then pending action in which Dyotherm had sued Turbo, accusing the latter, in effect, of stealing its inventive ideas and development work. As a part of the settlement agreement, Dyothern licensed Turbo to manufacture and sell in North America, South America, and Japan machines for finishing women’s hosiery covered by four identified patent applications, two of which eventuated in patents, the other two being…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Leach v. Ross Heater & Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939
- S. H. P. Vevelstad, William L. Pape, and Aurora Nickel Company, a Corporation v. E. Miles FlynnCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1956
- Peters & Russell, Inc. v. DorfmanCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1951
- Flynn v. VevelstadDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1954
- First Nat. Bank v. Pioneer Laundry & Cleaners, Inc.District Court, D. Alaska · 1952
3Cited by1 opinion
- Joann Zaddack v. A.B. Dick CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985