From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Milligan v. Lalance and Grosjean Manufacturing Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 1, 1883
92 N.Y. 649 (N.Y. 1883)

Summary

In Milligan v. Lalance Grosjean Manufacturing Co., C.C., 21 F. 570, the court held that a defendant whose position was described as similar to a licensee could not set up the defense that the patent was invalid because the novel element of the patent had been inserted by an attorney without authority from the inventor.

Summary of this case from Dwight Lloyd S. Co. v. American Ore Reclamation

Opinion

Submitted April 17, 1883

Decided May 1, 1883

Abram Wakeman for appellant.

Roderick Robertson for respondent.


Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.


Summaries of

Milligan v. Lalance and Grosjean Manufacturing Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 1, 1883
92 N.Y. 649 (N.Y. 1883)

In Milligan v. Lalance Grosjean Manufacturing Co., C.C., 21 F. 570, the court held that a defendant whose position was described as similar to a licensee could not set up the defense that the patent was invalid because the novel element of the patent had been inserted by an attorney without authority from the inventor.

Summary of this case from Dwight Lloyd S. Co. v. American Ore Reclamation
Case details for

Milligan v. Lalance and Grosjean Manufacturing Company

Case Details

Full title:HENRY C. MILLIGAN, Respondent, v . THE LALANCE AND GROSJEAN MANUFACTURING…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 1, 1883

Citations

92 N.Y. 649 (N.Y. 1883)

Citing Cases

Dwight Lloyd S. Co. v. American Ore Reclamation

Moreover, the courts have indicated that a licensee may not question the validity of its licensor's patents…