Legal Opinion

Owl Fumigating Corporation v. California Cyanide Co.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided February 18, 1929No. 3918PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WOOLLEY, Circuit Judge.

The defendants, corporations bearing the same name but organized under the laws of different states, are charged by the bill with infringement of certain of the plaintiff’s letters patent. Direet infringement is charged against the California company, an operating subsidiary of the Delaware company, and contributory infringement is charged against the Delaware company, the holding corporation, in that it authorized, directed and controlled the acts of the former company. To^ sustain these averments the plaintiff alleged and proved facts from which it asked the court to…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1897
  2. Owl Fumigating Corporation v. California Cyanide Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1928

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Krivo Industrial Supply Company and Morgan Precision Parts, Inc. v. National Distillers and Chemical CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1973
  2. Mobil Oil Corporation v. Linear Films, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1989
  3. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1980
  4. Japan Petroleum Co.(Nigeria) Ltd. v. Ashland OilDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1978
  5. Ladjevardian v. Laidlaw-Coggeshall, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1977

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

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

Powered by the Exa API