Legal Opinion
Claude Neon Electrical Products, Inc. v. Brilliant Tube Sign Co.
District Court, W.D. Washington
Decided March 28, 1930No. 601PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CUSHMAN, District Judge.
At the threshold of the ease the court is asked to uphold the validity of the patent on two grounds. First, by virtue of the doctrine of comity; second, because of the presumption of validity arising from the grant of the patent, reenforced by reason of the great and rapid success of the patented invention. As consideration of the two foregoing matters, in one particular at least, converge upon the same point of fact, they will be considered in the order stated.
There is no doubt of the desirability of the doctrine of comity in patent cases. Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover…
2Cases cited49 opinions
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Diamond Rubber Co. of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Seymour v. OsborneSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1900
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Sun Ray Gas Corp. v. Bellows-Claude Neon Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1931
- Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. George A. Breon & Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1936
- Sun Ray Gas Corp. v. Bellows-Claude Neon Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1931