Legal Opinion
Taussig v. Jack & Jill One Hour Cleaners, No. 12, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided September 13, 1978No. Civ. A. C76-159APublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
CONTIE, District Judge.
This is an action for alleged infringement of a United States patent. The Court having duly heard testimony and received exhibits, the following shall constitute the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 52, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
THE PARTIES
Plaintiff Frederick Taussig initiated this action to redress the alleged infringement of United States Letters Patent No. 3,733,-267 (hereinafter the 267 patent). Said patent was issued to Gordon W. Haase on May 15, 1973, based upon an application filed April 17,…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Elizabeth v. Pavement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Smith & Griggs Manufacturing Co. v. SpragueSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Imhaeuser v. BuerkSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- General Electric Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1981
- Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Allied Chemical Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1979
- Dragani v. Eastman Kodak Co.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1983
- Frederick Taussig v. Jack and Jill One Hour Cleaners No. 12, IncCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1980
- Pixion, Inc. v. Citrix Systems, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2012