Legal Opinion

Electro Bleaching Gas Co. v. Paradon Mfg. Co.

District Court, D. New Jersey

Decided October 29, 1930PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

FAKE, District Judge.

This action is instituted for the purpose of restraining defendants from,contributory infringement of a United States process patent, No. 1,142,361, issued to complainant Electro Bleaching Gas Company, as assignor of one George Ornstein., Under this patent the complainant Wallace • & Tiemen Company, Inc., operate as exclusive licensees. Defendants contend that- the patent is invalid because the claims set out in the letters patent, or material parts thereof alleged to be new, had been disclosed by prior patents and publications. The answer sets up nineteen patents in the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Electro Bleaching Gas Co. v. Paradon Engineering Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926
  2. Electro-Bleaching Gas Co. v. Paradon Engineering Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1925
  3. Electro Bleaching Gas Co. v. MillerDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1920
  4. Electro Bleaching Gas Co. v. Greenport Sewerage Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1929
  5. Electro Bleaching Gas Co. v. Village of Garden CityDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1926

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Meyer v. Dalkon Shield TrustCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API