Legal Opinion
Aralac, Inc. v. Hat Corp.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided March 4, 1946No. 532PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LEAHY, District Judge.
For the purposes of the motion to dismiss, the allegations of the complaint will be accepted.1 Hat manufacturers buy plaintiff’s fibres for use in making fur felt hats. Statements attributable to defendant are that it has asserted to plaintiff’s customers that defendant’s patents encompass the use of casein fibres in such manufacture. For example, a certain letter charged one of plaintiff’s largest customers — John B. Stetson Company — with infringement by its use of casein fibres. Stetson then brought suit for declaratory judgment relief with respect to the same patents…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- American Well Works Company v. Layne and Bowler CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Dewey & Almy Chemical Co. v. American Anode, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1943
- Dale Tile Manufacturing Co. v. HyattSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Wade v. LawderSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Alfred Hofmann, Inc. v. Knitting MacHines CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1941
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Aralac, Inc. v. Hat Corporation of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1948
- Magic Foam Sales Corp. v. Mystic Foam Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1948
- Wallace & Tiernan Inc. v. General Electric CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1968
- National Coupling Co. v. Press Seal Gasket Corp.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 1962