Legal Opinion

Ensten v. Rich-Sampliner Co.

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Decided April 5, 1926No. 1704PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WESTENHAVER, District Judge.

TMs suit is based on United States letters patent 1,303,080, issued August 12,1919, to Louis H. Ensten. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 5 are declared on. *133This is the same patent as was involved in equity ease 573, Ensten v. Rich-Sampliner Co. In that suit it was held that claims 1, 3, 4, and 5 were valid, and that claim 2 was invalid, and on May 24, 1922, an interlocutory decree was entered, awarding a preliminary' injunction and ordering an accounting of profits and damages on the claims held valid, and denied as to claim 2, held invalid. An appeal was taken by defendant,…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. O'Reilly v. MorseSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
  2. Ex Parte National Enameling and Stamping CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1906
  3. Herman v. Youngstown Car Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1911
  4. Gage v. HerringSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
  5. Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Butte & Superior Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1919

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. R. Hoe & Co. v. Goss Printing Press Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1929
  2. Ensten v. Simon, Ascher & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
  3. Bassick Mfg. Co. v. United Grease Gun Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 1929
  4. General Chemical Co. v. Standard Wholesale Phosphate & Acid Works, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 1934
  5. Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Adams Grease Gun Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1928

3 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