Brookfield v. Novelty Glass Mfg. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of'New Jersey.
1Opinion of the Court
ARCHBALD, District Judge.
The cross-appeal of the complainants brings up the question of damages, which the court below denied. It is contended that the Brookfield Glass Company, of which William .Brookfield, the complainants’ testator and owner of the patent, was the controlling stockholder, the glass company being his licensee, was equipped to take care of the demands of the market of which it was deprived by the defendants’ infringement, and that the complainants, suing not only for themselves but in its behalf, are entitled to recover by way of damages what the glass company would have…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Jackson v. LudelingSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Birdsell v. ShaliolSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Yale Lock Manufacturing Co. v. SargentSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Blair v. Lippincott Glass Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · 1892
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Western Electric Co. v. Pacent Reproducer CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
- P. R. Mallory & Co. v. Automotive Mfrs' Outlet, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1930
- De Laski & Thropp Circular Woven Tire Co. v. Empire Rubber & Tire Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1916
- National Metal Weather Strip Co. v. BredinCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1911
- Pressed Prism Glass Co. v. Continuous Glass Prism Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania · 1910
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.