Legal Opinion
Inland Steel Products Co. v. MPH Manufacturing Corp.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided December 29, 1959No. Nos. 54 C 1449, 54 C 1471, 55 C 835PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
ROBSON, District Judge.
In each of these three consolidated causes, there have been filed by Inland Steel Company, the parent company *237(hereinafter called Inland), Inland Steel Products Company (hereinafter called Products), and Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc. (hereinafter called Ryerson), subsidiaries of Inland Steel Company, motions to strike (1) the amendment and supplement to the counterclaim in Numbers 54 C 1449 and 54 C 1471, and (2) the amendment and supplement to the complaint in No. 55 C 835. These new pleadings assert that Inland and Ryerson actively induced infringement by Products in…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hart Steel Co. v. Railroad Supply Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Frank Adam Electric Co. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1945
- Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engineering & Foundry Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1951
- Hancock Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1941
- Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1910
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Independent Taxicab Operators' Ass'n v. Yellow Cab Co.District Court, N.D. California · 1968