Legal Opinion

Meinecke v. Eagle Druggists Supply Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided March 23, 1937PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PATTERSON, District Judge.

The motion is by the plaintiff to dismiss counterclaim as insufficient in law. The bill is a conventional one for infringe-^ ment of patent. It alleges that plaintiff Meinecke is owner and plaintiff Davol Rubber Company exclusive licensee of patent 1,583,019, and that defendant is making and selling an infringing article. The defendant’s answer is also conventional in that it denies infringement and sets up invalidity of the patent sued on. The defendant then proceeds to set forth, by way of counterclaim, that the plaintiff Davol Rubber Company marks its product with…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Moore v. New York Cotton ExchangeSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Hann v. Venetian Blind CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1936
  3. Link-Belt Co. v. Dorr Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1936

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Treemond Co. v. Schering CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1941
  2. Leach v. Ross Heater & Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939
  3. Dominion Electrical Mfg. Co. v. Edwin L. Wiegand Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1942
  4. Contracting Division, A. C. Horn Corp. v. New York Life Ins.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1940
  5. Dewey & Almy Chemical Co. v. Johnson, Drake & Piper, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1939

14 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