1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 190 F.Supp.
  5. 190 F.Supp. 875 (1961)
 

LINDLY & COMPANY v. KARL H. INDERFURTH COMPANY

Civ. No. 1202.

190 F.Supp. 875 (1961)

LINDLY & COMPANY, Inc., Plaintiff, v. KARL H. INDERFURTH COMPANY Fabrionics Corporation and Telephonics Corporation, Defendants.

United States District Court E. D. North Carolina, Raleigh Division.

January 18, 1961.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Welch Jordan, Greensboro, N. C., Robert E. Burns, New York City, for plaintiff.

George W. Whitney, Brumbaugh, Free, Graves & Donohue, New York City, W. T. Joyner, Jr., Joyner & Howison, Raleigh, N. C., for Fabrionics & Telephonics.

Charles T. Myers, Charlotte, N. C., for Inderfurth Co.

BUTLER, District Judge.

This is an action for patent infringement relating to a yarn tensioning device. The determinative question is whether venue is properly laid in the Eastern District of North Carolina.

The plaintiff, Lindly and Company, Inc., is hereinafter referred to as "Lindly", and the defendants, Karl H. Inderfurth Company, Fabrionics Corporation, and Telephonics Corporation, are hereinafter referred to as "Inderfurth", "Fabrionics", and "Telephonics...

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