Diamond Power Specialty Corp. v. Bayer Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
1DissentSimons, Circuit Judge
I am unable to concur. When the basic patents for automatic valve-in-head blowers and tubes of chromium alloy were adjudicated as valid and infringed by the appellees, the parties compromised their differences to avoid further litigation, and entered into the license agreement. Bayer secured rights under four minor patents and limited rights up to 18% per cent, chromium under the Snow & Cox patent. This enabled it to make nonautomatic blowers with tubes of low-chromium content but did not permit it to compete with the superior apparatus of the appellant. To compensate for this, Bayer was…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Marks v. . CowdinNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
- Merriam v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Matthews v. LaPradeSupreme Court of Virginia · 1921
- Colonial, Ice Cream Co. v. Southland Ice Utilities Corp.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1931
- Sampliner v. Maryland Casualty Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1933
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.