LOIZA SUGAR CO.

v.

PORTO RICO

Citator

Cited By

• Livesay Window Co., Inc. v. Livesay Indus., Inc., 251 F.2d 469 (5th Cir. 1958)
  …all that was required. The notice need only be actual knowledge that the Patent Owner is contending that there is a valid patent and that the other is infringing. Warner v. Tennessee Products Corporation, 7 Cir., 57 F. 2d 642, 643, certiorari denied 287 U.S. 632, 53 S.Ct. 83, 77 L.Ed. 548. The Infringer could hardly have more clearly expressed its interpretation of that suit as a claim of infringement. The efforts of the Infringer now to find semantical magic in the words “it is apparent” do not impress us…
• The Schlegel Mfg. Co. v. USM Corp., 525 F.2d 775 (6th Cir. 1975)
  …, see Kraly v. National Distillers & Chem. Corp., 502 F. 2d 1366 (7th Cir. 1974). This is a consent decree that clearly states that the Horton patent is valid and infringed. See Warner v. Tennessee Prod. Corp., 57 F. 2d 642 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 287 U.S. 632, 53 S.Ct. 83, 77 L.Ed. 548 (1932). The principal issue then is not whether res judicata applies in the traditional sense, considering the facts of the case and the requirements of that doctrine, but rather whether the entire policy of res judicata…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• State Line & Sullivan R. Co. v. Phillips, 98 F.2d 651 (3d Cir. 1938)
  …ter how well qualified, could have had! but slight effect towards overturning the decision reached in the mind of the District Judge. In fact its probative force is inconsequential. Tracy v. Commissioner, 6 Cir., 53 F. 2d 575, 579, certiorari denied 287 U.S. 632, 53 S.Ct. 83, 77 L.Ed. 548; Cohansey Glass Co. v. First National Bank of Philadelphia, 3 Cir., 251 F. 177, 180; Grand Valley Water User’s Association v. Zumbrunn, 8 Cir., 272 F. 943; 947; Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. Co. v. Mullins, 249 U.S. 531,…