Legal Opinion
Lektophone Corp. v. Rola Co.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided July 17, 1928No. 1726PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BOURQUIN, District Judge.
TMs suit is one of many to vindicate Hopkins’ patents, Nos. 1,271,527 and 1,271,529. In reports *759thereof, to which Lektophone Corporation v. Brandes Corporation (C. C. A.) 20 F.(2d) 155, opens the door, the description and details of the discovery and invention are sufficient, save some features material to the instant ease.
The patents were granted July 2, 1918, on applications, original and divisional, filed July 14, 1913, and April 17, 1918. Involved herein are claims 29 and 30 of the first patent, and claims 1 to 8 of the second. The defenses are invalidity and…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- White v. DunbarSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Mahn v. HarwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- I. T. S. Rubber Co. v. Essex Rubber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Concrete Appliances Co. v. GomerySupreme Court of the United States · 1925
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Lektophone Corp. v. Rola Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1929
- Lensch v. Metallizing Co. of AmericaDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1941
- Andrus v. WhitmanDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1950
- (DP) Weaver v. ChappellDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021
- Woods v. KijakaziDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 2019