Legal Opinion
Oriental Tissue Co. v. Louis De Jonge & Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided January 11, 1916PublishedCited by 3 opinions
In Equity. Suit by the Oriental Tissue Company against Eouis De Jonge & Co. On final hearing. Decree for defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
MAYER, District Judge.
[1] In a suit between these same parties, involving this same claim 2, the patent was held valid and infringed. 218 Fed. 170, 134 C. C. A. 50, affirmed 218 Fed. 173, 134 C. C. A. 50. *295The present case involves a new imitation gold leaf. It will be recalled that claim 2 reads:
“A thin lent or fabric composed entirely of soluble cotton and a coloring matter incorporated therein.”
Plaintiff contends: (1) That the patent discloses a meritorious and pioneer invention; (2) that defendant’s leaf infringes, under the doctrines of (a) addition and (b) equivalents. Defendant contends…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- General Electric Co. v. Hoskins Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1915
- Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. American Graphophone Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1907
- Oriental Tissue Co. v. Louis Dejonge & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914
- Treibacher Chemische Werke Gesellschaft Mit Beschränkter Haftung v. Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1914
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- A. B. Dick Co. v. Underwood Typewriter Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1916
- Wilson & Willard Mfg. Co. v. Union Tool Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1918
- Oriental Tissue Co. v. DejongeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1918