Talbot v. Quaker State Oil Refining Co.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
McVICAR, District Judge.
Plaintiffs aver in their bill, that they are the owners of patent 1,890,421 for new and useful improvements in “Non Refillable Receptacles”; that defendant has infringed the same. They seek an injunction and an accounting. Defendant, in its answer, denies validity and infringement. It also sets up as a special defense therein, paragraphs A, B and C, wherein it avers that plaintiffs are estopped and barred by the decree of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 322 Pa. 155, 185 A. 586; that the infringements complained of are within defendant’s contractual rights, as previ…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- American Surety Co. v. BaldwinSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Grubb v. Public Util. Comm'n of OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- United States v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Aspinwall, Manuf'g Co. v. GillUnited States Circuit Court · 1887
- Blackledge v. Weir & Craig Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1901
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Schering Corporation v. Roussel-Uclaf Sa, Involuntary v. Zeneca Inc. And Zeneca Holdings Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997