Legal Opinion
Bruen v. Huff
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided September 24, 1950No. Civ. No. 7169PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BIGGS, Circuit Judge.
This action is brought pursuant to R.S. Section 4919, 35 U.S.C.A. § 67, by the owners of United States Patent No. 2,340,862, the Bruen patent, against the defendants, Huff, Troy and the Roto-Card File Company, Inc., for alleged patent infringement. Diebold, Incorporated (Diebold), the exclusive licensee under the patent, has been impleaded as a party-plaintiff. The defendants set up counterclaims for a declaratory judgment to have the patent declared invalid and for damages against Diebold for unfair competition. They also seek reasonable counsel fees.
As to the Validity…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Morgan v. DanielsSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Radio Corp. of America v. Radio Engineering Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Alliance Securities Co. v. De Vilbiss Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1930
- Celite Corporation v. Dicalite Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Celebrity, Inc. v. Trina, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1959
- Lewis Manufacturing Co. v. Chisholm-Ryder Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1979
- J. R. Clark Co. v. Murray Metal Products Co.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1953