Legal Opinion
Elliott Addressing Mach. Co. v. Wallace Addressing Mach. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided July 28, 1930No. 379PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CHASE, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiff Elliott is the exclusive licensee for addressing machine use of Puller patent, No. 1,101,268, owned by the plaintiff A. B. Dick Company. This patent is for á stencil sheet, and its validity has already been sustained. A. B. Dick Co. v. Underwood Typewriter Co., Inc. (D. C.) 246 F. 309, affirmed (C. C. A.) 252 F. 990 and A. B. Dick Co. v. Barnett (D. C.) 287 F. 573, affirmed (C. C. A.) 288 F. 799. The issue in this suit is confined to infringement.
The stencil sheet of this patent is made by coating “an open lace-like material” such as Japanese Yoshino paper,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hall Signal Co. v. General Ry. Signal Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1907
- A. B. Dick Co. v. BarnettCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923
- Simson Bros. v. Blancard & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1927
- George Cutter Co. v. Metropolitan Electric Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
- A. B. Dick Co. v. BarnettDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1922
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- National Electric Products Corp. v. GrossmanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
- Diamond Power Specialty Corp. v. Bayer Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1938
- Penmac Corp. v. Falcon Pencil Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1939
- Steinfur Patents Corp. v. Philip Singer & Bro.District Court, S.D. New York · 1930