Dall Motor Parts Co. v. Packard Motor Car Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtRobinson, J.
The defendant in error obtained a judgment in the trial court against the plaintiff in error for royalties claimed to be due upon a written contract between the parties, whereby the defendant in error granted to the plaintiff in error the right, not exclusive, to manufacture and sell an article upon the principle of which the defendant in error held letters patent.
Upon error to the Court of Appeals the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.
The defense of the plaintiff in error was that the letters patent were invalid because letters patent had been issued to other parties covering the same…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- St. Paul Plow Works v. StarlingSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- The Union Manufacturing Co. v. . LounsburyNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
- Marsh v. Harris Manufacturing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
- Starling v. St. Paul Plow-WorksU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota · 1887
3Cited by6 opinions
- Ohio Citizens Trust Co. v. Air-Way Electric Appliance Corp.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1944
- Miller v. O. B. McClintock Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1941
- Skil Corp. v. Lucerne Products, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1980
- Barlow v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1936
- Bassani Processes, Inc. v. Edward Stern & Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.