Legal Opinion
Vulcan, Inc. v. Fordees Corp.
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided February 16, 1978No. C 75-54 YPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER WITH FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
LAMBROS, District Judge.
INTRODUCTION
The essence of this action is patent infringement. The patent in issue is U.S. Patent No. 3,166,154, granted January 19, 1965 (the “Titzel patent”). The accused devices are portable work towers (“reline towers”) manufactured by Fordees Corporation (“Fordees”). This action involves both the questions of validity and infringement of the Titzel patent. Plaintiff has asserted that a prior consent judgment is dispositive of the issue of validity. Further, contending that later Fordees…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- The Schlegel Manufacturing Company v. Usm CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1976
- United States of America Ex Rel. Shell Oil Company v. Barco Corporation and John BarakatCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1970
- Brunswick Corporation v. Chrysler Corporation and Chrysler Outboard CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1969
- Broadview Chemical Corporation v. Loctite CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1973
- J. I. Clark Company and John R. Clark v. Jones & Laughlin Steel CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1961
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Nash County Board of Education v. Biltmore Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1981
- Adcor Indus., Inc. v. BEVCORP, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2005
- Nash County Board Of Education v. The Biltmore CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1981