General Motors Corp. v. Leishman
District Court, S.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
McCORMICK, Chief Judge.
■ This action is for a declaratory • judgment. The, relief the plaintiff seeks is. a judicial determination that certain radio tuning devices' manufactured and sold by plaintiff do not infringe Claims 7 to 11, inclusive, of United States Reissue Letters Patent No. 20,827 applied for -by- defendant May 23, 1938, and granted to him August 16, 1938, and also that such patent claims are invalid. Issue was joined by defendant’s- answer, and his counterclaim whereby he denied the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint and affirmatively alleged validity of the patent claims in…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- General Electric Co. v. Jewel Incandescent Lamp Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Old Town Ribbon & Carbon Co. v. Columbia Ribbon & Carbon Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947
- Leishman v. Radio Condenser Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1948
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Leishman v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1951
- La Maur, Inc. v. DeMert & Dougherty, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1965