Legal Opinion

Winterbottom v. Casey

District Court, E.D. Michigan

Decided August 26, 1922No. 425PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TUTTLE, District Judge.

This is a patent infringement suit, which is now before the court on a motion by plaintiff for leave to amend the bill of complaint, by adding thereto certain allegations ■ of jurisdictional facts absent from the bill as originally filed. Said allegations relate to the venue of the suit. The proper venue in such a *519suit is prescribed by section 48 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1030), as follows:

“In suits brought for the infringement of letters patent the District Courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction, in law or in equity, in the district of which the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. In Re HohorstSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  2. In Re Keasbey & Mattison Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
  3. Westinghouse Air-Brake Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1898
  4. American Electric Welding Co. v. Lalance & Grosjean Mfg. Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1917
  5. General Electric Co. v. Best Electric Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1914

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. In Re: Cray Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2017
  2. Gulf Smokeless Coal Co. v. Sutton, Steele & Steele.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1929
  3. Phillips v. BakerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1941
  4. West Publishing Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  5. Elevator Supplies Co. v. Wagner Mfg. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1931

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API