Legal Opinion
Samuel M. Langston Co. v. F. X. Hooper Co.
District Court, D. Maryland
Decided October 11, 1934No. 2106PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CHESNUT, District Judge.
This is a patent infringement suit in equity in usual form. The defences are (1) the¡ invalidity of the plaintiff’s patents and (2) j non-infringement. The defendant also sets up a counter claim based on alleged improper advertising by the plaintiff but it was not pressed.
In view of the extended findings of fact which have been made, this opinion will be limited to the dominant legal questions involved in the ease.
The plaintiff’s patents cover a device made and called by it a “running register” for printer and slotter machines. Its United ¡ States patents Nos.…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- 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
- Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. WintersSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Black & Decker Mfg. Co. v. Baltimore Truck Tire Service Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1930
- Gulf Smokeless Coal Co. v. Sutton, Steele & Steele.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1929
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Baker-Cammack Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Davis Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1950
- Kilgore Mfg. Co. v. Triumph Explosives, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 1941
- O. M. I. Corp. v. Kelsh Instrument Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1959
- Commercial Novelty Co. v. Victory Fireworks & Specialty Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1937
- Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1951
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.