Legal Opinion
Ray-O-Vac Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
District Court, E.D. Illinois
Decided July 22, 1942No. Civil Action No. 240-DPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LINDLEY, District Judge.
Plaintiff charges defendant with infringement of its patent, to Anthony, 2,198,423, for a leak proof dry cell flashlight battery. Defendant asserts invalidity and noninfringement and in a counterclaim prays judgment accordingly. The allegedly infringing cell was manufactured by General Dry Batteries, Inc., who defends the suit.
Dry cells are not of recent origin; indeed, the basic elements involved in their proper construction have been well known for many years. In keeping with the development of ' electrical devices generally, the flashlight battery industry has grown…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- The Barbed Wire PatentSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Diamond Rubber Co. of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Bradley v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1948
- Moss v. Patterson-Ballagh Corp.District Court, S.D. California · 1950
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944