Blastcrete Equipment Co. v. RIDLEY AND CO.
District Court, S.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
YANKWICH, District Judge.
The second amended complaint on which the case was tried charged patent infringement and unfair competition. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1400(b). At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s argument I expressed the view that there was no proof of unfair competition by misappropriation of trade secrets or otherwise. A further study of the matter reenforces, me in the view.
I
No Unfair Competition
In this case I. M. Ridley, late in 1951 and early in 1952, assigned his invention-contained in Letters Patent 2,569,952, issued to him on October 2, 1951, and 2,594,072, issued to him on April 22,…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Scott Paper Co. v. Marcalus Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. v. Formica Insulation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Edward Katzinger Co. v. Chicago Metallic Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Sarkes Tarzian, Inc. v. Audio Devices, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 1958
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Cold Metal Process Co. v. Aluminum Co.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1961
- Fortner & Perrin, Inc. v. PerrinDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1960