Legal Opinion

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. v. Norton Co.

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Decided January 29, 1968No. Civ. A. 37154PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GREEN, District Judge.

This is an action alleging infringement of United States Letters Patent No. 2,-958,593, hereinafter referred to as the Hoover patent. Claims one through eight, of a total of thirteen claims, are in issue herein. Plaintiff is the assignee of the inventors, Howard L. Hoover, Eugene J. Dupre and Walter J. Rankin, each of whom was in plaintiff’s employ at the time the patented product was developed.

The patent in suit covers an abrasive pad described in the specifications thereof as follows:

The present invention relates to non-woven fibrous abrasive articles…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
  3. Atlantic Works v. BradySupreme Court of the United States · 1883
  4. Gustav H. Bobertz, Jr. v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1955
  5. Goodwin v. Borg-Warner CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1946

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. General Motors Corp. v. Toyota Motor Co., Ltd.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1979
  2. Hercules Inc. v. Exxon Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1980
  3. Rosen v. Lawson-Hemphill, Inc.District Court, D. Rhode Island · 1975
  4. Taussig v. Jack & Jill One Hour Cleaners, No. 12, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1978
  5. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company v. Norton Company, Studebaker-Packard Corporation, Hadco Corporation,defendants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1970

2 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