Legal Opinion

Chromalloy American Corp. v. Alloy Surfaces Co.

District Court, D. Delaware

Decided November 30, 1972No. Civ. A. No. 3640Published

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LATCHUM, District Judge.

In this patent litigation, the defendants, pursuant to Rule . 15, F.R.Civ.P., have moved for leave to amend, and supplement their answer and counterclaim to assert that the plaintiff, through the enforcement of the patent-in-suit,1 procured by fraud on the Patent Office, violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, by attempting to monopolize and by monopolizing the sale of diffusion coating services for certain jet engine parts in the United States. Treble damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15, are demanded as a part of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

John H. Freeman, Jr., D/B/A Freeman Electric Gin Company v. Continental Gin CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1967
Mrs. Lois B. Nevels v. Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1971
Chromalloy American Corp. v. Alloy Surfaces Co., Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1972
Friedman v. Transamerica Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1946
Karl E. Stiegele and Speidel Corporation v. J. M. Moore Import-Export Co., Inc., Moore Products Corporation and Joseph Mitchell MooreCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963

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