Legal Opinion
Rousso v. Boyle
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided September 3, 1924No. 80PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CANT, District Judge.
We are here concerned with two patents issued to the plaintiff, a mechanical patent and a design patent, Such patents are numbered, respectively, 1,157,046 and 42,398. Each having been regularly issued, each is prima facie valid. The defense has been carried on largely by and on behalf of one Stephen B. Fetherolf. Fetherolf is a manufacturer of devices and designs which plaintiff claims are infringements of his patents. Under a contract with Fetherolf, these devices and designs are being used by defendants.
As to the mechanical patent, the defense is that because of prior…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- The Barbed Wire PatentSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Gorham Co. v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Deering v. Winona Harvester WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Lehnbeuter v. HolthausSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Adamson v. GillilandSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Rousso v. First Nat. Bank in DetroitCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1930
- Nilson v. Ford Motor Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1929
- Rousso v. Elco Towel Cabinet Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1928