Legal Opinion
Goldhaft v. Moorhouse
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided December 2, 1969No. 4-69 Civ. 45PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NEVILLE, District Judge.
The present motion before this court seeks leave to join Swift & Company as an involuntary plaintiff or in the alternative as an involuntary defendant. The complaint filed herein alleges that the presently named defendants infringed certain patents of which plaintiffs were exclusive licensees and used the processes covered by these patents without paying royalties to the plaintiffs as such licensee. It stands admitted that one of the patents claimed to be violated, United States Patent No. 2,676,105 granted April 20, 1954, is, and at all times here involved has been,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Waterman v. MacKenzieSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Independent Wireless Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Western Electric Co. v. Pacent Reproducer CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
- Hook v. Hook & Ackerman, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1951
- Merck & Co. v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1958
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Aceto Corp. v. TherapeuticsMD, Inc.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2013
- Catanzaro v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1974
- KLI, Inc. v. Richard Wolf Medical Instruments Corp.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1980