Legal Opinion
Kay Jewelry Co. v. Gruen National Watch Case Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided May 13, 1930No. 5452PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MACK, Circuit Judge.
Appeal from a deeree permanently enjoining defendant, a retail jeweler, from making, using, or selling watches containing cases manufactured according to United States patent No. 1,573,134, for improvements in “Watehease and Process for Making Same,” granted to plaintiff on February 16, 1926, on the application of Carl W. Bieser. The decree further ordered an accounting of profits and damages. Both claims of the Bieser patent were held valid and infringed; the court further found specially that the suit was defended by the Bulova Watch Case Company of New York City. As…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- The Barbed Wire PatentSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Krementz v. S. Cottle Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Howard v. Detroit Stove WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- John E. Thropp's Sons Co. v. SeiberlingSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Harvey Hubbell, Inc. v. General Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1920
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Monroe Auto Equipment Company v. Heckethorn Manufacturing & Supply CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1964
- Copease Manufacturing Co. v. Cormac Photocopy Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1965
- Condenser Development Corp. v. Montgomery Ward & Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1936
- Joyce, Inc. v. Fern Shoe Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1940