Legal Opinion
Burt v. Bilofsky
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided April 27, 1954No. Civ. No. 6529PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, District Judge.
This action, which arises under the ^patent laws, was commenced under the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 400, now 28 U.S.C.A. § 2201. The plaintiffs, having been previously charged with infringement of the patent in suit, filed a complaint in which they challenged the validity of the patent and denied infringement. The defendants filed a counterclaim in which they charged the plaintiffs with infringement and sought the usual relief. The issues are those common to actions under the patent laws.
The defendant Maxwell M. Bilofsky is the owner of the patent in suit,…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Blish, Mize & Silliman Hardware Co. v. Time Saver Tools, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1956
- Blish v. Time Saver ToolsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1956