Legal Opinion
Calderwood v. Mansfield
District Court, N.D. California
Decided April 22, 1947No. 26195-GPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GOODMAN, District Judge.
This is a qui tarn action to recover the penalties prescribed by R. S. 4901, 35 U.S. C.A. § 50. By the statute, which is derived from the Act of July 8, 1870, 16 Stat. 203, penalties are imposed upon any person “who, in any manner, marks upon or affixes to any unpatented article the word ‘patent,’ * * * for the purpose- of deceiving the public” and one-half of the penalties imposed may be awarded to the informer who successfully prosecutes an action for the recovery thereof.
The nature of this action is penal. Although it may be brought by an informer or on behalf of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Connecticut Telephone & Electric Co. v. Automotive Equipment Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1926
- Automotive Equipment Co. v. Connecticut Telephone & Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1927
- Newgold v. American Electrical Novelty & Mfg. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1901
- Winner v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1929
- Zuckerman v. PilotDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1940
3Cited by8 opinions
- G. Leblanc Corporation v. H. & A. Selmer, Inc., G. Leblanc Corporation v. H. & A. Selmer, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1962
- United States Ex Rel. Stillwell v. Hughes Helicopters, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 1989
- Accent Designs, Inc. v. Jan Jewelry Designs, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1993
- Julian B. Slevin Company v. Bartgis Brothers CompanyDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1956
- Guide v. DesperakDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1956
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.