Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

2 opinions for “Brode v. Monsanto Company”

Van Brode Milling Co., Inc. v. Cox Air Gauge System, Incorporatedpublic domain

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1960-05-27 · Published · cited 3× · 279 F.2d 313; 125 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 510; 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4466

BARNES, Circuit Judge. Appellant, assignee of a patent for plastic battery hold-down frames, brought this action in the court below for patent infringement and unfair competition. Appellee Cox Air Gauge System, Incorporated, a distributor of the accused frames, brought a counterclaim for declaratory judgment as to the validity of th

read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · company profile: Van Brode Milling Co. → · find the judge →

Van Brode Milling Co. v. Cox Air Gauge System, Inc.public domain

District Court, S.D. California · 1958-04-21 · Published · cited 0× · 161 F. Supp. 437; 118 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 135; 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2386

YANKWICH, Chief Judge. Involved in this litigation are validity and infringement1 of Coleman Patent No. 2,710,660 filed December 10, 1951 and issued June 14, 1955, for “a battery hold-down frame of synthetic rubber resin material”. The chief objects of the invention are stated in the specifications in this manner: “The main object of the present invention is to provid

read the full opinion · at the source · see the docket → · company profile: Van Brode Milling Co. → · find the judge →