Legal Opinion

Mallinckrodt Chemical Works v. E. R. Squibb & Sons

District Court, W.D. Missouri

Decided October 1, 1932No. 1287PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

REEVES, District Judge.

This is a suit for an alleged infringement of United States patent No. 1,370,865, granted March 8, 1921, to Frederick Westerbeek, but now owned by plaintiff, Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, a corporation.

The bill seeks an injunction against the defendant and prays for an accounting of profits.

The defendant, on its part, denies infringement, challenges the validity of the patent for lack of invention, in view of the prior state of the art, and asserts anticipation by patent No. 260,432, granted to Francis A. Walsh July 4, 1882. The defendant asserts that even if valid, its…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
  2. Diamond Rubber Co. of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
  3. Naylor v. Alsop Process Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1909
  4. Forsyth v. GarlockCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1905
  5. Galvin Electric Mfg. Co. v. Emerson Electric Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1927

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Hoeltke v. C. M. Kemp Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1936
  2. Reynolds v. Whitin MacH. WorksCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1948
  3. United States Pipe & Foundry Co. v. James B. Clow & Sons, Inc.District Court, N.D. Alabama · 1962
  4. Johnson Bros. Engineering Corp. v. Caille Bros.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1934
  5. Hoeltke v. C. M. Kemp Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API