Legal Opinion
American Infra-Red Radiant Co. v. Lambert Industries, Inc.
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided January 20, 1965No. Civ. No. 5-61-51PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DONOVAN, District Judge.
This is a patent infringement suit. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin infringement *178by defendants and demand damages and other relief. Defendants deny liability and allege estoppel and invalidity of the letters patent, and by counterclaim demand a declaratory judgment in their favor.
The complaint identifies the respective parties and then by allegations commendably brief and clear states the cause of action, as follows:
“4. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 U.S. [C] 271 and 281 et seq. This Court has jurisdiction under Title 28, U.S.C. 1338.…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Northern Securities Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Coal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1961
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- American Infra-Red Radiant Co. v. Lambert Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1966
- Hickory Springs Manufacturing Co. v. Fredman Bros. Furniture Co.District Court, S.D. Illinois · 1972
- American Infra-Red Radiant Co., Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Hupp Corporation, a Virginia Corporation v. Lambert Industries, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, Industrial Ceramics, Inc.,a Minnesota Corporation, and Agard L. Lambert, Lambert Industries, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, Industrial Ceramics, Inc.,a Minnesota Corporation, and Agard L. Lambert v. American Infra-Red Radiant Co., Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Huppcorporation, a Virginia CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1966