Legal Opinion
Reidenbach v. A. I. Namm & Son
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided March 3, 1938No. Nos. 8368, 8369PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
INCH, District Judge.
Plaintiff, the alleged inventor an4 the owner of a patent, brings these two suits for alleged infringement. The first suit is against the retailer, the other is against the manufacturer. The issue is the same in both suits. The evidence in one is applicable to the other. The parties duly agreed to try both suits together. One decision therefore will decide both suits although there must be separate decrees.
Plaintiff’s patent was applied for June 15, 1934 and granted June 11, 1935, U. S. No. 2,004,730.
It is undisputed that plaintiff never put on the market, in a commercial…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Hailes v. Van WormerSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- I. T. S. Rubber Co. v. Essex Rubber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Pickering v. McCulloughSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Paramount Publix Corp. v. American Triergon Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Montmarquet v. Johnson & JohnsonDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1949