Legal Opinion
Franc-Strohmenger & Cowan, Inc. v. Arthur Siegman, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided August 20, 1928No. 353PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SWAN, Circuit Judge.
Infringement is not disputed, if the patent is valid; but appellant challenges its validity. It is contended that the alleged improvement described in the patent is lacking in patentable invention over the prior art; that no inferences favorable to the validity of the patent are to be drawn from plaintiff’s commercial success, because that 'Success is to be credited to the nonereasing quality of the lining material used in the commercial product rather than to the teaching of the patent; and that the patent is insufficient as a disclosure. These points will be considered…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Holland Furniture Co. v. Perkins Glue Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Kurtz v. Belle Hat Lining Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922
- Van Heusen Products, Inc. v. Earl & WilsonDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1924
- Forchheimer v. Franc, Strohmenger & Cowan, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1927
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co. v. General Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- Lever Bros. Co. v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1943
- Standard Oil Company v. MontedisonDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1980
- International Nickel Company v. Ford Motor CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1958
- Coltman v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1939
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.