Legal Opinion
B. B. Chemical Co. v. Cataract Chemical Co.
District Court, W.D. New York
Decided October 25, 1938No. 2218PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KNIGHT, District Judge.
This is a suit for infringement of certain patents. The Bill is in the usual form. Defendant answering denies infringement and sets up certain prior art patents. The questions presented are the sufficiency of Paragraph 13 of the Amended Answer; the relevancy and propriety of certain interrogatories; and the sufficiency of Bills of Particulars.
Paragraph 13 of the original Answer was ordered stricken by the court. An Amended Answer has since been offered by defendant. Defendant states that “it (Paragraph 13 as amended) is intended to plead a defense of license by…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Leitch Manufacturing Co. v. Barber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- A. B. Dick Co. v. Underwood Typewriter Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1916
- Wilson v. Union Tool Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1921
- John Wood Mfg. Co. v. Keiner-Williams Stamping Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1925
- Rowell v. William Koehl Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 1912
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Neff Instrument Corporation, a Corporation v. Cohu Electronics, Inc., and Neely EnterprisesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1959
- Hygienic Specialties Co. v. H. G. Salzman, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1960