Legal Opinion
Jungersen v. Morris Kaysen Co.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided January 24, 1940No. 358PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KALODNER, District Judge.
This is a suit in a civil action for patent infringement. The case was tried before-me without a jury.
From the pleadings, proofs and briefs-it is evident that if Patent No. 2,118,468 to> Jungersen is valid, then it is also infringed. The defense is the asserted invalidity of the- patent because of anticipation by the prior art: more specifically, prior patents, prior processes or methods, and prior publications.
The patent is for a method of casting articles of intricate design and a product thereof. Commercially, the articles of intricate design have been metal…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Potts v. CreagerSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Mumm v. Jacob E. Decker & SonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Imhaeuser v. BuerkSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1929
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Jungersen v. BadenCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
- Jungersen v. BadenDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1947
- Ostby & Barton Co. v. JungersenDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1946
- Ostby & Barton Co. v. JungersenDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1941
- Jungersen v. KaysenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.