Camfield Mfg. Co. v. McGraw Electric Co.
District Court, D. Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
LEAHY, District Judge.
1. Before arriving at the question of plaintiff’s right to have the Michigan litigation enjoined, a reference to the factual background is necessary. The facts show defendant, soon after negotiations had commenced between the parties looking to a license agreement, stated its position that it desired to institute suit against plaintiff in a direct infringement suit, even though negotiations were to continue. Defendant then agreed to withhold the infringement suit upon plaintiff’s promise not to file a declaratory judgment action during the pendency of the negotiations.…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, Appts. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- United States v. Aluminum Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- United States v. Colgate & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Board of Trade of Chicago v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Apex Hosiery Co. v. LeaderSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Tivoli Realty, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1948
- United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1953
- State Ex Rel. General Dynamics Corp. v. LutenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1978
- A. B. C. Distributing Co. v. Distillers Distributing Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1957
- Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. v. Eastern R. R. Presidents ConferenceDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1953
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.