1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.J.
  4. 82 N.J.
  5. 82 N.J. Super. 531 (1964)
 

AMER. PHOTOCOPY EQ. CO. v. AMPTO, INC.

82 N.J. Super. 531 (1964)

198 A.2d 469

AMERICAN PHOTOCOPY EQUIPMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION (SUBSTITUTED AS PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT FOR COPEASE MANUFACTURING CO., INC.), PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. AMPTO, INC., A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, AND AMPTO EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Decided February 20, 1964.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Mr. Alfred C. Clapp, and Mr. William C. Conner of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for appellant (Messrs. Clapp & Eisenberg, attorneys).

Mr. Samuel J. Stoll of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for respondent (Messrs. Morris, Downing & Sherred, attorneys; Mr. John R. Knox, of counsel).

Before Judges CONFORD, FREUND and SULLIVAN.

The opinion of the court was delivered by CONFORD, S.J.A.D.

This is an action to recover royalties under a patent license agreement allegedly entered into by Copease Manufacturing Co., Inc. (Copease), a corporation of the State of New York, and Ampto, Inc. (Ampto), a corporation of the State of New Jersey. The action was originally brought by Copease against Anken Chemical & Film Corp. (Anken) and its two wholly-owned subsidiaries, Ampto and Ampto Equipment Corp...

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