Legal Opinion

Consolidated Middlings Purifier Co. v. Wolf

United States Circuit Court

Decided October 8, 1886PublishedCited by 7 opinions

In Equity.

1Opinion of the CourtBradley, J.

(orally.) In the case of Consolidated Middlings Purifier Company against Wolf and others, we have come to the conclusion that the bill cannot be sustained.

It is founded on an allegation of infringement of the patent, and not on a claim for royalty under the license granted under the patent. As a bill for infringement of the patent we think it cannot be sustained; that the license which was given authorized the defendants to make and sell the middlings purifier machine, and reserved the royalty, to be paid on the manufacture and sale of the machines. The manufacture and sale of machines would…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Root v. Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1882

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Leon Kirschner and Henry Naftulin, Individually and as Co-Partners, Trading as K-N Enterprises v. West CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1962
  2. Standard Dental Mfg. Co. v. National Tooth Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1899
  3. Chadeloid Chemical Co. v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1913
  4. New York Phonograph Co. v. EdisonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1905
  5. Hazeltine Research Corp. v. Freed-Eisemann Radio Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 1924

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API