Legal Opinion

Automatic Devices Corp. v. Cuno Engineering Corp.

District Court, D. Connecticut

Decided June 7, 1940No. Civ. A. No. 97PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HINCKS, District Judge.

1. Plaintiff is a corporation of Connecticut. It is a patent holding company and does not manufacture or sell cigar lighters. Defendant is a Connecticut Corporation located in Meriden, Connecticut, where it has long been engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigar lighters. The expense of this action is being borne by plaintiff’s licensee, Casco Products Corporation, also a Connecticut corporation.

2. This is an action under the patent laws for infringement of claims 1, 2, 3 and 11 of the Mead patent 1,736,544 filed August 24, 1927, dated November 19, 1929 for Cigar…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Automatic Devices Corp. v. Sinko Tool & Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1940
  2. Cutler-Hammer, Inc. v. Carling Tool & Machine Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1932

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
  2. Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942

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

Powered by the Exa API