Legal Opinion
Switzer v. Marzall
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided November 22, 1950No. Civ. A. No. 597-49PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KEECH, District Judge.
The process which plaintiff herein seeks to patent is that of dyeing fabric, particularly cellulose acetate, to obtain a daylight fluorescent fabric.
Briefly, he accomplishes this by dissolving a daylight fluorescent dye in a strong aqueous alcohol, or other solution' of water and a solvent which swells the fibers of the fabric so that they will absorb the dye, immersing the fabric in the *53■dyebath, maintaining the temperature of the bath below that which swells the filaments of the fabric to coalescence, and then flushing the fabric with cool water to remove the dye bath.
T…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Jungersen v. Ostby & Barton Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Electric Cable Joint Co. v. Brooklyn Edison Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Dewey & Almy Chemical Co. v. Mimex Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
- Standard Oil Development Co. v. Marzall, Commissioner of PatentsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1950
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States Pipe & Foundry Co. v. James B. Clow & Sons, Inc.District Court, N.D. Alabama · 1962
- Texas-Miller Hat Corp. v. Switzer Bros., Inc. Switzer Bros., Inc. v. Texas-Miller Hat Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1953
- Texas-Miller Hat Corp. v. Switzer Bros., Inc. Switzer Bros., Inc. v. Texas-Miller Hat Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1953