Legal Opinion
Health Products Corporation v. Ex-Lax Mfg. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided November 1, 1927No. 39PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtL. Hand, Circuit Judge
(after stating tho facts as above). We do not find it necessary to say whether the substitution of phenolphthalein for cascara in a laxative chewing gum would be an invention. Perhaps not, however great the success when it appeared. Again, we do not find it necessary to say whether, if that substitution be an invention, the claim in suit will cover a gufn in which the laxative is not mixed in during manufacture, but is dusted upon the outside and held in place by an outer layer of sugar. Given an adequate disclosure of one way to practice the invention, perhaps the underlying notion might be…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Matheson v. CampbellCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1897
- A. B. Dick Co. v. BarnettCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923
- Kuehmsted v. Farbenfabriken of Elberfeld Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1910
- H. Ward Leonard, Inc. v. Maxwell Motor Sales Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1918
- Electro-Dynamic Co. v. United States Light & Heat Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Standard Brands, Inc. v. National Grain Yeast Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1939
- Stelos Co. v. Hosiery Motor-Mend CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1932
- Novadel Process Corporation v. JP Meyer & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1929
- Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. UmbachCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1949
- Franc-Strohmenger & Cowan, Inc. v. Arthur Siegman, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1928
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.