Legal Opinion

Vanadium-Alloys Steel Co. v. McKenna

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided April 15, 1939No. 223PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GIBSON, District Judge.

The defendant has moved to dismiss the action, asserting that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and, also, that the court is without jurisdiction.

From the complaint it appears that both plaintiff and defendant are residents in the Western District of Pennsylvania. The defendant, the complaint alleges, was employed by plaintiff under a contract to discover and invent new metals, etc., and as part of his contract defendant agreed to assign to plaintiff all inventions conceived by him while in the employ of plaintiff, but despite his…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. The Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1913
  2. Littlefield v. PerrySupreme Court of the United States · 1875
  3. Healy v. Sea Gull Specialty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
  4. New Marshall Engine Co. v. Marshall Engine Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1912
  5. Bisel v. LadnerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1924

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Measurements Corp. v. Ferris Instrument Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1947
  2. Papazian v. American Steel & Wire Co. of New JerseyDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1957
  3. Southern Music Pub. Co. v. Walt Disney ProductionsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1947

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

Powered by the Exa API