Legal Opinion

Marshall v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co.

District Court, D. Delaware

Decided February 18, 1948No. Civil Action 711PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LEAHY, District Judge.

This is a hybrid action. In part, it is a declaratory judgment suit in which a plaintiff seeks judgment declaring that he has entire right in three inventions discovered during his employment by defendant. Each of the inventions is represented presently by applications for patents. In another part, the complaint alleges damages purporting to result from defendant refusing to consent to plaintiff’s exclusive ownership of these inventions; and plaintiff thereby has been prevented from their full exploitation.

The complaint sets forth plaintiff’s estimate of damages as, at…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. United States v. Dubilier Condenser CorpSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
  2. Solomons v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
  3. Standard Parts Co. v. PeckSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
  4. Gill v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  5. Houghton v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1928

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Marshall v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1949
  2. Daniel Orifice Fitting Co. v. WhalenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
  3. Oliver v. Lockport Mills, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1956
  4. Cahill v. ReganNew York Supreme Court · 1956

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API