Legal Opinion
Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Blume
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided August 7, 1979No. C-1-76-51PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
DAVID S. PORTER, Chief Judge:
This case, which involves patent infringement in the field of magnets and magnetism, demonstrates two noteworthy points. The first is the important role played by magnets and magnetism in our economy. By one estimate, magnets, and magnetism have an economic impact in our economy equivalent to almost 1V2% of the Gross National Product (dx 380; Jacobs, The Role of Magnetism in Technology 1, 5 (General Electric Research & Development Center (November 1963)). As Jacobs points out, the basic principles of magnetism, as applied to…
2Cases cited59 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Lear, Inc. v. AdkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Dickerson v. ColgroveSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Teamster's Local 348 Health and Welfare Fund v. Kohn Beverage CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1984
- Seringetti Construction Co. v. City of CincinnatiOhio Court of Appeals · 1988
- Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellee v. Walter S. Blume and the Electrodyne Company, Inc., Defendants-Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1982
- National Football League v. Rondor, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1993
- Ridens v. Voluntary Separation ProgramDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1985
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.