Legal Opinion
Philad Co. v. Lechler Laboratories, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided November 20, 1939No. 72PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PATTERSON, Circuit Judge.'
The Philad Company, owner of a patent on a process for imparting a permanent wave to the hair, patent to Mayer, reissue 18,841, brought suits for infringement against four concerns. The charge was that the defendants were guilty of contributory infringement, in that they sold appliances designed for use in waving hair by the patented process, with knowledge that purchasers were to use the appliances in waving hair by that process. The cases were tried together. The defendants conceded that the appliances sold by them (clamps, curling rods, pads and heaters) were of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Carbice Corp. of America v. American Patents Development Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Henry v. A. B. Dick Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Leitch Manufacturing Co. v. Barber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Leeds & Catlin Company v. Victor Talking Machine Company (No. 2)Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
3Cited by23 opinions
- Joy Technologies, Inc., and A/s Niro Atomizer, Involuntary v. Flakt, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Aralac, Inc. v. Hat Corporation of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1948
- Esther Marion Armstrong v. Motorola, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1967
- B. B. Chemical Co. v. EllisCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1941
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.