Signalite Fuse Co. v. Fuse Indicator Corp.
District Court, D. Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
LEAHY, District Judge.
This suit is for declaratory judgment, 28 U.S.C.A. § 400, that plaintiff does not infringe Smalley No. 1,850,853 and that the patent is invalid. Controversy exists because defendant sued one of plaintiff’s customers for infringement in the District of Columbia. Defendant in addition to its charge of infringement relies on three special defenses, two of which are in the nature of estoppel and the third license.
The first defense is res judicata or estoppel by judgment. It is based on a decree entered, on March 9, 1938 by the United States District Court in the case of…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Cover v. SchwartzCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
- Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. International Harvester Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1941
- Larson v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
- Landis MacHinery Co. v. Chaso Tool Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1944
- Richard Irvin & Co. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1941
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.