Goodyear v. McBurney
10 F. Cas. 699, 3 Blatchf. 32, 1853 U.S. App. LEXIS 693
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided September 12, 1853·Published·Cited by 3 cases
Opinion
The suit is properly brought in the name of the pat-entee, in behalf of the party holding a license to use.
There has been much neglect and delay in this proceeding, on the part of Greacen; but I cannot say that he shall be debarred from contesting in the usual way the matters set up in the plea. The motion is granted, on payment of the costs of opposing it, and of putting in a rejoinder to the replication.
[For other cases involving this patent, see note to Goodyear v. Central It. Co., Case No. 5,563.]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Goodyear v. McBurney, 10 F. Cas. 699, 3 Blatchf. 32, 1853 U.S. App. LEXIS 693 (circtsdny 1853).
10 F. Cas. 699 (Goodyear v. McBurney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
New York Continental Jewell Filtration Co. v. City of Sullivan
111 F. 179 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana, 1901)
Brush Electric Co. v. Electric Imp. Co.
49 F. 73 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California, 1892)
Brush-Swan Electric Light Co. v. Thomson-Houston Electric Co.
48 F. 224 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut, 1891)