Legal Opinion

Vibration Specialty Co. v. Balancing Service Co.

District Court, W.D. Washington

Decided November 14, 1935No. 1123PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

BOWEN, District Judge.

In the case of Edison Phonograph Co. v. Victor Talking Machine Co. (C.C.) 120 F. 305, it was held that “a bill for infringement of three separate patents is not subject to demurrer for multifariousness where it alleges that the things patented are capable of conjoint use, and are in fact so used in the apparatus of defendant, and the patents, of which profert is made, contain nothing inconsistent with such averment.” (Syllabus). See, also, Union Switch & Signal Co. v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. (C.C.) 68 F. 914. Also, Judge Sanborn in Chicago Grain Door Co. v. Chicago, B.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. General Investment Co. v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
  2. Chicago Grain Door Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois · 1905
  3. Waldo v. WilsonCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1916
  4. Union Switch & Signal Co. v. Philadelphia & R. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1895
  5. Belknap Hardware &. Mfg. Co. v. Ohio River Contract Co.District Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1920

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Berssenbrugge v. Luce Mfg. Co.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1939

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

Powered by the Exa API