Legal Opinion
McFarlane v. Resinite Corp.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided May 12, 1967No. 67 C 230PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MAROVITZ, District Judge.
Defendants’ Motion for Separate Trial on Count I.
This action arises out of a patent controversy between competing manufacturers of coilforms. Plaintiff McFarlane who had filed his patent application on November 13, 1961, was granted U.S. Patent No. 3,105,948, consisting of eight claims, on October 1, 1963, for a COIL-FORM. Plaintiff Coilform Company is owned by McFarlane and his family and manufactures coilforms under the Mc-Farlane patent.
Hugh T. Blair, filed an application for his patent, Serial No. 126,431, entitled “ELECTRICAL ELEMENT AND METHOD”…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Virginia Richmond v. Albert Weiner, as of the Estate of Harry SoforenkoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1965
- Doherty Research Co. v. Vickers Petroleum Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1936
- Woburn Degreasing Co. v. Spencer Kellogg & SonsDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1941
- Western States Mach. Co. v. S. S. Hepworth Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1941
- Foster Grant Co. v. Polymer Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1960
3Cited by3 opinions
- Filtrol Corporation and Texaco, Inc. v. The Honorable Robert J. Kelleher, United States District JudgeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1973
- Montecatini Edison, S.P.A. (A Corporation of Italy) v. Karl Ziegler, and E. I. Dupont De Nemours and Company (A Corporation of Delaware)Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1973
- Electronic Assistance Corp. v. City of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1973