Tweedale v. Sunbeam Corp.
District Court, E.D. Michigan
1Opinion of the Court
PICARD, District Judge.
Action by plaintiff for infringement of patent No. 2,110,748. This defendant denies, and claims further that letters patent should never have been issued since plaintiff’s device won’t work or if it does it is not an invention over the prior art. In addition defendant asserts improper venue and lack of jurisdiction.
Findings of Fact
Questions of jurisdiction and venue were raised long before trial and decided adversely to defendant at which time an unsuccessful attempt was made to reverse the ruling by mandamus. Sunbeam Corporation v. Picard, 6 Cir., 227 F.2d 596. We then…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Universal Oil Products Co. v. Globe Oil & Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1943
- Modern Products Supply Co. v. DrachenbergCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1945
- American Laundry Mach. Co. v. StrikeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1939
- Dillon Co. v. Continental Supply Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1938
- Sunbeam Corporation v. The Honorable Frank A. Picard, United States District JudgeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1955
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical Co. v. Montgomery Ward & Co.District Court, D. Colorado · 1971