Legal Opinion
E. H. Tate Co. v. Jiffy Enterprises, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided July 21, 1961No. Civ. A. Nos. 25486, 25504PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
These cases were consolidated for trial. E. H. Tate Company is plaintiff in one case and intervening defendant in the other. Tate in C.A. 25,486 seeks a declaratory judgment that Margulis patent No. 2,809,001 (October 8, 1957) owned by Jiffy Enterprises, Inc., for a hanger is invalid. Jiffy in C.A. 25,504 sued Sears, Roebuck & Co. for infringement. Sears is one of Tate’s customers and it is defending on behalf of Sears. The issue in the two cases is the same: the validity of Margulis ’001.1 It appears *288infringement is conceded, since the device sold by Tate is a “Chinese copy” of the device in…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Atlantic Works v. BradySupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Smith v. NicholsSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Leitch Manufacturing Co. v. Barber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Nippon Elec. Glass Co., Ltd. v. SheldonDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1982