Legal Opinion
Ansul Company v. Uniroyal, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided October 31, 1969No. 68 Civ. 2244PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MANSFIELD, District Judge.
This action arose out of Ansul’s entry into the manufacture and sale, beginning in 1968, of a maleic hydrazide composition used by tobacco growers, farmers and others to inhibit certain types of plant growth. Prior thereto Uniroyal, claiming the exclusive right to make and sell the composition pursuant to U. S, Letters Patent No. 2,-614,916 (the “916. patent” herein), was the sole source of supply. On May 31, 1968, Ansul sought a declaratory judgment to the effect that defendant’s 916 patent was invalid because of failure to meet the requirements of patentability set…
2Cases cited67 opinions
- United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance MacHinery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- United States v. Colgate & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food MacHinery & Chemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1965
62 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- M. C. Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Texas Foundries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
- Kolene Corporation, and Deutsche Gold-Und-Silber Scheideanstalt Vormals Roessler v. Motor City Metal Treating, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1971
- The Ansul Company v. Uniroyal, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1971
- Rex Chainbelt Inc., (Cross-Appellee) v. Harco Products, Inc., Dba Dfc Company, (Cross-Appellant)Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.