Legal Opinion · Dissent

Franke v. Wiltschek

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided December 9, 1953No. 96, Docket 22843Published

1DissentFrank, Circuit Judge

e., as to the nature of the relief).

I entirely agree that plaintiffs are entitled to relief, and disagree solely as to the kind of relief (i. e., a perpetual injunction). I think money damages will be wholly adequate. To make my position clear, I must first high-light the facts of this case which I think indisputable :(1) When defendants first came on the scene, plaintiffs were already marketing their wash-cloths publicly, so that anyone could buy them. (2) A previously expired patent (not owned by plaintiffs) revealed all the elements of plaintiffs’ process for making these cloths, excepting…

2Cases cited43 opinions

  1. Williams v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. Guaranty Trust Co. v. YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  3. Guaranty Trust Co. v. YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  4. Holmberg v. ArmbrechtSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  5. Hecht Co. v. BowlesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944

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

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API