Legal Opinion

Allen v. Consolidated Fruit Jar Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey

Decided June 5, 1906PublishedCited by 2 opinions

In Equity. On motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

1Opinion of the Court

TANNING, District Judge.

By their bill the complainants sét forth that Joseph C. Allen, one of the complainants, was the original, first, and sole invéntor of improvements in receptacles for tooth powder having telescopic tops with circumferential openings; that he duly filed his application for a patent thereon; that on June 5, 1901, he assigned his invention and his right in and to any letters patent that should be issued thereon to the defendant, reserving to himself a royalty to be paid to him by the defendant upon the articles manufactured and sold under the patent, in case one should be…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. American Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
  2. Mowry v. WhitneySupreme Court of the United States · 1872
  3. Spring v. Domestic Sewing-Machine Co.United States Circuit Court · 1882

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Chadeloid Chemical Co. v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1913
  2. Heckscher v. Pennsylvania Steel Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1913

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

Powered by the Exa API