Legal Opinion

Bayer Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided June 28, 1944No. C. D. 859PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Cole, Judge:

Plaintiff, through its parent corporation, exercises exclusive control, obtained from letters patent (exhibit F), over cinnamyl ephedrine hydrochloride, the merchandise.in question. It is a coal-tar product with therapeutic properties that impart some anaesthetizing effect and “powerful spasmolytic action.” The product is never used alone, but is always associated with other therapeutic agents. Plaintiff employs it as an ingredient in two different products. With one, marketed under the label “Midol,” it is mixed with aspirin and caffeine and advertised as a remedy “to relieve…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Klipstein v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1910
  2. United States v. Lorsch & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1917
  3. Synthetic Patents Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1944
  4. Synthetic Patents Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1943
  5. Synthetic Patents Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1943

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Roerig v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1951
  2. Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1955
  3. Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1955

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API