Lykken v. Ineernational Pulverizing Corp

2 Citing cases

  1. Hydraulic Press Mfg. Co. v. E. W. Bliss Co.

    2 F.R.D. 35 (W.D.N.Y. 1941)   Cited 1 times

    There may be instances in which such requests should be allowed and there are decisions granting such requests. However, I see no reason here in departing from the rule long established in these cses: Jessup & Moore Paper Co. v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., D.C., 25 F.Supp. 598; Smith v. Buckeye Incubator Co., D.C., 33 F.Supp. 71; Midwest Mfg. Co. v. Staynew Filter Corp., D.C.W.D.N.Y., 12 F.Supp. 876; Lykken v. International Pulverizing Corp., D.C.D.N.J., 33 U.S.P.Q. 373; E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co. v. Byrnes, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 34, 35.           (3) Particulars as to when the plaintiff first knew of the infringement of Patent No. 1,927,585 and Re-issue Patent No. 19,694 are directed to be given; in all other respects this request is denied.

  2. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co. v. Marbon Corporation

    30 F. Supp. 420 (D. Del. 1939)   Cited 3 times

    The evidence establishes a prima facie case of fraud. Shellmar Products Co. v. Allen-Qualley Co., 7 Cir., 36 F.2d 623; Id., 7 Cir., 87 F.2d 104; Lykken v. International Pulverizing Corp., 35 U.S.P.Q. 153. If its case is sustained on final hearing plaintiff will be entitled to protection by this court against injury at the hands of defendants through enforcement of the Bradley McGavack patent.