Legal Opinion

National Development Co. v. Gray

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided May 31, 1944PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRonan, J.

The plaintiff manufactures an automatic wood heel edge setting machine known as the Howard machine upon which it bolds a patent, and leases the machines under license contracts to wood heel manufacturers. *242It services these machines, supplies parts and receives a royalty for their use. The bill alleges that the defendant Lawson while in the plaintiff’s employment had invented an edge setting machine for wood heels, which on account of the nature and terms of his employment belongs to the plaintiff; that Lawson had applied for a patent for his invention; and that he had assigned his rights in…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. United States v. Dubilier Condenser CorpSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
  2. Solomons v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
  3. McCLURG v. KINGSLANDSupreme Court of the United States · 1843
  4. Dalzell v. Dueber Watch Case Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
  5. Standard Parts Co. v. PeckSupreme Court of the United States · 1924

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Steranko v. Inforex, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1977
  2. Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. CiavattaSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1988
  3. Jamesbury Corporation v. Worcester Valve Company, Inc. v. E. W. Bliss Company, IntervenerCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1971
  4. Morris v. Scenera Research, LLCSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2016
  5. Speck v. North Carolina Dairy Foundation, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1984

23 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