Legal Opinion
Rumford Chemical Works v. Hygienic Chemical Co.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided December 7, 1906PublishedCited by 3 opinions
In Equity.- On final hearing.
1Opinion of the Court
CROSS, District Judge.
The bill of complaint seeks to hold the defendant liable for contributory infringement of letters patent No. 474,811, for a baking powder, dated May 17, 1892, issued to one Charles A. Catlin, and duly assigned to the complainant. The validity of the patent has been established by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Rumford Chemical Works v. New York Baking Powder Company et al., 134 Fed. 385, 67 C. C. A. 367. It appears in the case that there are two corporations bearing the name of Hygienic Chemical Company; that one is a New York corporation-, and the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Heaton-Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1896
- Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1897
- Penfield v. C. & A. Potts & Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1903
- David Bradley Manuf'g Co. v. Eagle Manuf'g Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1893
- Bullock Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1904
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1907
- Chas. H. Lilly Co. v. I. F. Laucks, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1933
- Miller v. Electro Bleaching Gas Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1921