Legal Opinion
Philad Co. v. National Mineral Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided February 26, 1936PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
PATTERSON, District Judge.
The suit is for patent infringement. The defendant moves to quash service of process and to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
By section 48 of the Judicial Code (28 U.S.C.A. § 109), suit for patent infringement may be brought in the district in which the defendant is an inhabitant or in any district wherein the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. The defendant being an Illinois corporation, the questions raised by this motion are whether the defendant committed acts of alleged infringement in this district…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- W. S. Tyler Co. v. Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Remington Rand Business Service, Inc. v. Acme Card System Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1934
- Elevator Supplies Co. v. Wagner Mfg. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1931
- Stein v. Standard Oil Co. of CaliforniaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1929
- Root v. Samuel Cupples Envelope Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1929
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Dolly Toy Co. v. Bancroft-Rellim Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1951