Wilson Athletic Goods Mfg. Co. v. Kennedy Sporting Goods Mfg. Co.
District Court, N.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
BRENNAN, Chief Judge.
This is the usual patent infringement action, requesting the usual relief. The answer asserts the invalidity of plaintiff’s patent, denies infringement, sets up the affirmative defense of estoppel, and contains a counterclaim requesting a declaratory judgment of invalidity and alleging unfair competition. The issues have been narrowed by the defendant’s abandonment of the unfair competition counterclaim and by the concession that if the Court finds that plaintiff’s patent is valid, then a finding of infringement may follow. The question of validity is the principal issue…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Radio Corp. of America v. Radio Engineering Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1885
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Wilson Athletic Goods Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Kennedy Sporting Goods Mfg. Co., Inc. And J. Lawrence KennedyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1956
- Georgia-Pacific Plywood Co. v. United States Plywood Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1956
- Smith v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1956
- Oxford Filing Supply Co. v. Globe-Wernicke Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1957