Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, Incorporated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAIDEN-TOLEDO, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellees, 1931 — 49 F.2d 1087 · caselaw · US
Criminal Law · MBE-tested
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, Incorporated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAIDEN-TOLEDO, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellees
49 F.2d 1087·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·1931
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, Incorporated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAIDEN-TOLEDO, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 5687.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 9, 1931.
F. O. Richey, of Cleveland, Ohio (H. A. Pattison and F. T. Woodward, both of New York City, Tracy, Chapman & Welles, of Toledo, Ohio, and Richey & Watts, of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellant.
F. F. Crampton, of Toledo, Ohio, for appellees.
Before MOORMAN, HICKS, andHICKENLOOPER, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
In July, 1929, in a suit brought by appellant against appellees, a decree pro eonfesso was entered enjoining the defendants from infringing upon letters patent Nos. 1,707,544 (Thuras) and 1,707,545 (Wente), and from further unfair competition. A perpetual injunction was filed and served. Later, in December, 1929, appellant instituted proceedings in contempt. The District 'Court dismissed the proceedings on the ground that any violation of the injunction was the result of earnest solicitation upon the part of the plaintiff’s agents—analogous to entrapment in criminal cases. Upon a review of the evidence, this court is of the opinion that there was no improper conduct on the part of the appellant and its agents.
As the District Court did not determine the contentions on their merits, the decree is reversed, and the ease remanded for such proceeding.