Harshberger v. Tarrson
District Court, N.D. Illinois
1Opinion of the Court
LA BUY, District Judge.
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and for summary judgment based on the pleadings and affidavits of Kellerher and Tarrson and other exhibits.
The facts giving rise to the dispute are as follows. On February 10, 1940 plaintiff, Harshberger, granted an exclusive license to Perry G. Stahly, who, subsequently in accordance with the license terms, assigned it to Birdsell Laboratories, now Stahly, Inc. The license granted Stahly the “exclusive right and license throughout the world under said inventions, said Letters Patent * * *, said ' applications for…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Mitchell v. HawleySupreme Court of the United States · 1873
- Boston Store of Chicago v. American Graphophone Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Keeler v. Standard Folding Bed Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Joseph Triner Corp. v. McNeilIllinois Supreme Court · 1936
- Hummel v. RiordonDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1944
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Cyrix Corp. v. Intel Corp.District Court, E.D. Texas · 1994
- Cyrix Corp. v. Intel Corp.District Court, E.D. Texas · 1992
- Velsicol Chemical Corp. v. Hooker Chemical Corp.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1964
- Harshberger v. TarrsonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1950
- Stahly, Inc. v. M. H. Jacobs Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1949