Legal Opinion
New Wrinkle, Inc. v. Fritz
District Court, W.D. New York
Decided March 26, 1942PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KNIGHT, District Judge.
This is a suit for infringement of certain claims of Root Patent No. 1,732,661, application filed May 25, 1927, granted October 22, 1929, and of Root Patent No. 1,-896,594, application filed March 7, 1929, granted February 7, 1933. Admittedly the plaintiff is the owner of these patents. Suit was originally brought against the Pontiac Varnish Company, a Michigan Corporation (hereinafter called Pontiac). The complaint against the corporate defendant was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. D.C., 30 F.Supp. 89.
Pontiac has assumed the direction of the defense herein and is…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Diamond Rubber Co. of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Smith v. SnowSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. HydeSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Alfred Bell & Co. Ltd. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1951
- Grant v. McAuliffeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953