Legal Opinion
Philad Co. v. Murray's Beauty Salon
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided November 7, 1935No. 850PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NEVIN, District Judge.
Patent Infringement.
This is a suit under the patent laws of the United States. At the time the bill of complaint was filed, plaintiff, the Philad Company, was a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Ohio. On or about December 24, 1934, the Ohio corporation transferred all of, its assets, including the patent in suit, to the *627Philad Company, a corporation of the state of Delaware, and on the 5th day of March, 1935, an order was entered in this cause substituting the Philad Company of Delaware as party plaintiff for the Philad Company of Ohio.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Elgin National Watch Co. v. Illinois Watch Case Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Howe Scale Co. v. Wyckoff, Seamans & BenedictSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Vogue Co. v. Thompson-Hudson Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1924
- Fuller v. HuffCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1900
- Bliss, Fabyan & Co. v. Aileen Mills, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1928
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Safeway Stores, Incorporated v. Safeway Properties, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- National Hairdressers' & Cosmetologists' Ass'n v. Philad Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1941
- Dietene Co. v. Dietrim Co.District Court, D. Nebraska · 1954
- Safeway Stores, Incorporated v. Safeway Properties, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962