Legal Opinion
Inflexible Co. v. Megibow
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided August 1, 1918PublishedCited by 5 opinions
In Equity. Suit by the Inflexible Company against Abraham Megibow.
1Opinion of the Court
RELLSTAB, District Judge.
The Inflexible Company is the owner, by an assignment from Henry Schwarber, of design letters patent No. 50,080, issued to it December 19, 1916. The bill charges infringement by Abraham Megibow, and seeks permanent injunction, accounting, and damages. Both parties to this suit are manufacturers of laces and embroideries. The defenses are noninfringement, lack of patentable novelty, and prior .use.
The patent contains no written description of the design, but the specifications refer to the accompanying drawings. The design thus shown is for embroidered lace, and may be…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- The Barbed Wire PatentSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Gorham Co. v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Deering v. Winona Harvester WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Adamson v. GillilandSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Yablick v. Protecto Safety Appliance CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1927
- J. R. Wood & Sons, Inc. v. Abelson's, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1934
- Illinois Watch Case Co. v. Hingeco Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1936
- J. H. Balmer Co. v. Bay Ridge Specialty Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1937
- Yablick v. Protecto Safety Appliance CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1927