Legal Opinion
Morpul, Inc. v. Crescent Hosiery Mills
District Court, E.D. Tennessee
Decided January 12, 1967No. Civ. A. 3817-3821PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
FRANK W. WILSON, District Judge,
These five lawsuits arise under the patent laws of the United States and involve, among other matters, the validity and infringement of certain patents owned by the plaintiff, Morpul, Inc. The issues raised in each of the five cases, other than infringement, are substantially identical. The Court has accordingly consolidated the cases for trial, Even when consolidated, however, there remain a large number of issues for decision. The validity of each of four patents is in issue, with 72 patents being cited as prior art,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- United States v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Hotchkiss v. GreenwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Starin v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Monroe Auto Equipment Company v. Heckethorn Manufacturing & Supply CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1964
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Peter M. Roberts v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1984
- Skil Corp. v. Lucerne Products, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1980
- Witco Chemical Corp. v. Dow Chemical Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1985
- Peter M. Roberts v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1984