Legal Opinion

Jungersen v. Jenkins

District Court, D. Maryland

Decided August 3, 1939No. 216PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CHESNUT, District Judge.

This is a patent infringement suit in customary form, but it has been submitted for determination in an unusual manner. It appears that on or before the filing of the suit the defendants employed counsel, who have appeared for their clients in the case, but instead of filing a formal answer counsel for both parties have filed stipulations with regard to the c?se, the effect of which is that infringement is admitted, but the validity of the patent is submitted for determination by the court.

A trial date for June 30, 1939 was stipulated by counsel. On the call of the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
  2. Black & Decker Mfg. Co. v. Baltimore Truck Tire Service Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1930
  3. United States Industrial Chemical Co. v. Theroz Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1928
  4. McKee v. Graton & Knight Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1937
  5. Bulldog Electric Products Co. v. General Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1939

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Jungersen v. BadenCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
  2. Jungersen v. BadenDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1947
  3. Ostby & Barton Co. v. JungersenDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1946
  4. Jungersen v. Morris Kaysen Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1940
  5. Ostby & Barton Co. v. JungersenDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1941

1 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