Legal Opinion

A. B. Dick Co. v. Arlac Dry Stencil Corp.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided May 5, 1930No. 2359PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

McVICAR, District Judge.

This suit is' for infringement of patent No. 1,526,982 for improvement in stencil' sheets. The defense is invalidity and non-infringement. The court finds the following facts and conclusions of law:

*783Findings of Fact.(1) The plaintiff is a corporation of the state of Illinois, having its principal office in the oily of Chicago.(2) The Arlac Dry Stencil Corporation, defendant, is a corporation of the state of Delaware, having a regular and established place of business in the city of Pittsburgh, Allegheny county, in the Western district of Pennsylvania. The defendant…

2Cases cited9 opinions

Hart Steel Co. v. Railroad Supply Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
Penfield v. C. & A. Potts & Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1903
Lander v. Mercantile BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
AB Dick Co. v. Simplicator CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1929
Bemis Car Box Co. v. J. G. Brill Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1912

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

3Cited by1 opinion

Heyer Duplicator Co. v. A. B. Dick Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1932