Parke-Davis & Co. v. H. K. Mulford Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
In Equity. Two suits by Parke-Davis & Co. against the H. K, Mulford Company. Decree for complainant in each case. This is a final hearing upon two bills in equity praying an injunction against the infringement of two patents. The subject patented in each case is an extract from the suprarenal glands of living animals, and the patent concerns only the product as extracted by the patentee. He also has taken out other patents for his process, which are not concerned here.
Read the full summary
In Equity. Two suits by Parke-Davis & Co. against the H. K, Mulford Company. Decree for complainant in each case. This is a final hearing upon two bills in equity praying an injunction against the infringement of two patents. The subject patented in each case is an extract from the suprarenal glands of living animals, and the patent concerns only the product as extracted by the patentee. He also has taken out other patents for his process, which are not concerned here. The alleged infringements of the defendant consist of two products, one in the form of dry powder which constitutes the…
1Opinion of the CourtHand, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above), [ 1 ] I will first take up the consideration of the mother patent, No. 730,176, and of the issue of infringement, which the complainant alleges to be double: First, the dry powder; and, second, a sodium chloride solution of the boric acid salt of the dry powder. The dry powder Adrin is produced by a somewhat different process from Takamine’s “crude product,” Adrenalin; but upon the divergence of those processes I dp not mean to pass, for it does not seem to me necessary. The crucial step which Takamine discovered was that the base — it is true with some…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Cochrane v. Badische Anilin & Soda FabrikSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Sewall v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- American Wood-Paper Co. v. Fibre Disintegrating Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Matheson v. CampbellCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1897
- Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. American Graphophone Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1906
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by54 opinions
- Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois FoundationSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Marconi Wireless Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of America v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Jackson v. PollionCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2013
- State of West Virginia v. Chas. Pfizer & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1970
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.