Legal Opinion
Leishman v. Associated Wholesale Electric Co.
District Court, S.D. California
Decided January 31, 1941No. 1463-BHPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HARRISON, District Judge.
This is an action for infringement of reissue patent No. 20,827, issued August 16, 1938, upon application dated May 23, 1938. The original patent, under No. 2,-108,538, was ■ issued February 15, 1938. Claims 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 only are involved.
The principal defenses are invalidity, lack of infringement and intervening rights.
The Crosley Corporation of Cincinnati, Ohio, the manufacturer of the accused device, has assumed the defense of this action.
The reissue patent is a device for the manual operation of a tuning mechanism for a radio receiving set and is designated…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- The Barbed Wire PatentSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- 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
- McClain v. OrtmayerSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Atlantic Works v. BradySupreme Court of the United States · 1883
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Leishman v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1951
- Leishman v. Associated Wholesale Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1943
- Richards & Conover Co. v. LeishmanCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1948
- General Motors Corp. v. LeishmanDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1949