1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 45 F.Supp.
  5. 45 F.Supp. 755 (1942)
 

U. M. A., INC. v. BURDICK EQUIPMENT CO.

45 F.Supp. 755 (1942)

U. M. A., Inc., v. BURDICK EQUIPMENT CO., Inc.

District Court, S. D. New York.

July 6, 1942.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Harry Price, of New York City (Morris Hirsch, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Mock & Blum, of New York City (Ross O. Hinkle, of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for defendant.

RIFKIND, District Judge.

Motion by defendant for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

The complaint alleges that plaintiff is the owner of U. S. Patent No. 2,140,898, covering a method of producing intermittent venous occlusion. It also manufactures and sells an apparatus for the practice of the patented method. The judgment sought is for a declaration that the patent is valid; that it...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases