Legal Opinion
Dwight & Lloyd Sintering Co. v. American Ore Reclamation Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided December 15, 1941PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BONDY, District Judge.
Defendant concedes that the sub-licensees found by the master to have used patents 1,441,003, 1,469,521, 1,471,402, 1,491,778, 1,618,205 and 1,673,891 actually did use them and that defendant accordingly is liable for the royalties found by the master to be due plaintiff for their use.
Defendant contends that no royalties are due for the use of some of the other patents sued upon because they are invalid.
Defendant does not dispute that the courts have repeatedly stated that a licensee is estopped to deny the validity of his licensor’s patents, but it asserts that the…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. WintersSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. v. Formica Insulation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Ensten v. Simon, Ascher & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Dwight & Lloyd Sintering Co. v. GreenawaltCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
- Maytag Co. v. Hurley MacHine Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Automatic Paper Machinery Co. v. Marcalus Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1945
- Gridiron Steel Company, Claintiff-Appellant v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, Gridiron Steel Company v. Jones & Laughlin Steel CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1966
- Crane Co. v. Aeroquip CorporationDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1973
- Raymond Boyd v. Schildkraut Giftware Corporation and D & E Trading CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
- Smiths America Corp. v. Bendix Aviation Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 1956
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.