Legal Opinion

Deitel v. Chisholm

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided June 9, 1930No. 348PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MANTON, Circuit Judge.

The bill of complaint was dismissed, on motion of the appellee, because it is claimed that the appellant was a licensee only and could not maintain this suit for infringement of patent. The rights of the appellant in and to the patent are referred to in the bill, as follows: “The defendant Greer” (the patentee) “assigned to the plaintiff Deitel the exclusive right throughout the United States, its territories and dependencies, to use, manufacture and sell, or to license others to use, manufacture and sell vanity cases embodying features of construction disclosed and…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Waterman v. MacKenzieSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  2. Independent Wireless Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  3. Littlefield v. PerrySupreme Court of the United States · 1875
  4. Western Electric Co. v. Pacent Reproducer CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
  5. Collins v. Hupp Motor Car CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1927

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Lámar v. GrangerDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1951
  2. Merck & Co. v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1958
  3. Aceto Corp. v. TherapeuticsMD, Inc.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2013
  4. Innis, Speiden & Co. v. Food Machinery Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1942
  5. Six Wheel Corp. v. Sterling Motor Truck Co. of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1931

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

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

Powered by the Exa API