Legal Opinion

A. B. Dick Co. v. Barnett

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided September 27, 1922No. 20-366PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MAYER, Circuit Judge.

The patent was held valid in Dick Co. v. Underwood Typewriter Co. (D. C.) 246 Fed. 309, affirmed without opinion 252 Fed. 990, 164 C. C. A. 663. Therefore the Underwood Case, supra, must .be accepted as far as it goes, and there is nothing in the present record which menaces validity, if the patent disclosure is operative. While some other points were urged, the pres*574ent controversy may be reduced to two defenses, inoperativeness and noninfringement.

The present commercial stencil sheet has attained large commercial success, but that fact does not aid in determining the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. General Electric Co. v. AlexanderCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922
  2. General Electric Co. v. AlexanderDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1921
  3. A. B. Dick Co. v. Underwood Typewriter, Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1917

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Franc-Strohmenger & Cowan, Inc. v. Arthur Siegman, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1928
  2. Elliott Addressing Mach. Co. v. Wallace Addressing Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
  3. Elliott Addressing Mach. Co. v. Wallace Addressing Mach. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1930
  4. Adams v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1931
  5. Elliott Addressing Mach. Co. v. Addressing Typewriter Stencil Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1929

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

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

Powered by the Exa API