Legal Opinion
Abington Textile MacHinery Works v. Carding Specialists (Canada) Ltd.
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided December 21, 1965No. C. A. 2357-62PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JACKSON, District Judge.
This is an action for a declaratory judgment of invalidity of claims 1 to 4 of defendant’s United States patent No. 3,003,195 for “METHOD OF AND APPARATUS FOR THE TREATMENT OF COTTON FIBERS”, and for a further declaratory judgment that the ROLAKLEEN device manufactured and sold by plaintiff for installation in existing cotton carding machines does not infringe United States patent No. 3,003,-195. Process was served upon defendant pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 293. Defendant counterclaims for damages for past infringements and for an injunction against further infringements…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Diamond Rubber Co. of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Atlantic Works v. BradySupreme Court of the United States · 1883
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Frederick H. Norton v. Lawrence E. CurtissCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
- Amsted Industries Incorporated, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Buckeye Steel Castings CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
- Walt Disney Productions v. Fred A. Niles Communications Center, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1966
- Rohm and Haas Co. v. Dawson Chemical Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1983
- Ritter v. Rohm & Haas CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1967
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.