Legal Opinion
Broadview Chemical Corporation v. Loctite Corporation
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided January 2, 1970No. Civ. 10713PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON .DAMAGES, COSTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT
BLUMENFELD, District Judge.
On June 19, 1968, after a hearing, Broadview was found in civil contempt for having violated a consent decree by selling “Sta-Lok”, an anaerobic sealant, made by it from admittedly infringing formulae of Loctite’s concededly valid patents. Loctite was held entitled to recover damages and attorney’s fees and costs incurred in prosecuting the motions for contempt. The amount of the award for those items, and for damages resulting from the infringement was left open pending attempted accord between the…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- United States v. United Mine Workers of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Dowagiac Manufacturing Co. v. Minnesota Moline Plow Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Milgo Electronic Corporation, a Florida Corporation v. United Business Communications, Inc., a Kansas Corporation, DefendantCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1980
- DePoy v. Kipp (In Re DePoy)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · 1983
- Trio Process Corporation v. L. Goldstein's Sons, Inc. And Metal Bank of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1981
- In Re American Associated Systems, Inc.District Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1974
- Jarrell v. Petoseed Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1998
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.