Legal Opinion
George P. Converse & Co. v. Polaroid Corp.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided December 29, 1955No. Civ. A. No. 55-565PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ALDRICH, District Judge.
This is a motion to dismiss filed in a patent case by an intervenor, who, by agreement, stands fully, for this purpose, in the locus of the defendant. The record consists of the pleadings, and certain affidavits and exhibits. The motion is based on intervenor’s contention that as matter of law no infringement is shown.
In July, 1936 plaintiff Waters, hereafter called plaintiff, filed an application which on April 7, 1942 resulted in Patent No. 2,278,502 for a waterproof container and package. The history of this application through the patent office is long, and…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. Hanovia Chemical & Mfg. CoCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
- Doble Engineering Co. v. Leeds & Northrup Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1943
- Keyes Fibre Co. v. Chaplin Corp.District Court, D. Maine · 1951
- National Development Co. v. Lawson-Porter Shoe Machinery Corp.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1942
- Whitin Mach. Works v. HoughtonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1910
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- George P. Converse & Co., Inc. v. Polaroid CorporationCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1957
- Rohm and Haas Co. v. Dawson Chemical Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1983
- George P. Converse & Co. v. Polaroid Corp.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1956
- Paper Mate Manufacturing Co. v. W. A. Sheaffer Pen Co.District Court, S.D. Iowa · 1965