Legal Opinion
Midwest Mfg. Co. v. Staynew Filter Corp.
District Court, W.D. New York
Decided November 18, 1935No. 771PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KNIGHT, District Judge.
The plaintiff moves by separate motions (1) to compel the defendant to serve a bill of particulars; (2) to strike out certain paragraphs of the answer; and (3) to strike certain of defendant’s interrogatories.
It is important at the outset to have a general idea of the matters at issue. The suit is for the infringement of patent No. 1,521,575, an improvement in filters for purifying air. The application for the patent was filed in 1921. It is claimed that it combines the subject-matter of two German applications filed in 1915 and 1919, respectively. In 1915 a 'German…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- A. B. Dick Co. v. Underwood Typewriter Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1916
- J. H. Day Co. v. Mountain City Mill Co.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1915
- Universal Oil Products Co. v. Skelly Oil Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1926
- O-So-Ezy Mop Co. v. Channell Chemical Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1915
- Klein v. City of SeattleCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1896
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Mulloney v. Federal Reserve BankDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1938
- Hydraulic Press Mfg. Co. v. E. W. Bliss Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 1941
- Skrmetti v. AndersonDistrict Court, S.D. Mississippi · 1939