Legal Opinion
Elliott Addressing Mach. Co. v. Wallace Addressing Mach. Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 12, 1930No. 50-156PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WOOLSEY, District Judge.
The preliminary injunction pendente lite for which the plaintiffs pray is granted.
" I hold that the Fuller patent, No. 1,101,-268, for stencils, which has been repeatedly held valid in this circuit, is infringed in *234respect of claims Nos. 1, 2, 13, 14, 15-, 16, 23, and 24 by the stencils shown in the affidavits herein to have been made or caused to have been made by the defendant and sold by the defendant within this district.
The bill of complaint herein is brought by the A. B. Dick Company, a corporation of Illinois, as owner of United States patents Nos. 1,101,268,…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Elizabeth v. Pavement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1878
- MacHine Co. v. MurphySupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. WintersSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Burr v. DuryeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1864
- McCormick v. TalcottSupreme Court of the United States · 1858
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Steinfur Patents Corp. v. Philip Singer & Bro.District Court, S.D. New York · 1930
- Kaumagraph Co. v. Superior Trademark Mfg. Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1933