Tucker v. Meskill, 538 F.2d 314 (2d Cir. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
Tucker v. Meskill, 538 F.2d 314 (2d Cir. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
74 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 16 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Xerox Corp. v. Apple Computer, Inc. (cand, 1990-04-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Xerox Corp. v. Apple Computer, Inc.
N.D. Cal. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tubeco, Inc. v. Crippen Pipe Fabrication Corp., 402 F.Supp. 838, 847 (E.D.N.Y.1975), aff'd, 538 F.2d 314 (2d Cir.1976) ("There can be no ‘falsity’ about [a] patent; its existence is a fact and by law it must be presumed valid until its invalidity is established by a party contesting it.”).
discussed Cited "see" National Conference Of Bar Examiners v. Multistate Legal Studies, Inc.
7th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tubeco, Inc. v. Crippen Pipe Fabrications, Inc., 402 F.Supp. 838 (E.D.N.Y.1975), aff'd, 538 F.2d 314 (2d Cir. 1976). 14 Turning to the merits, Legal Studies first contends that the provision of the secure test regulation, 37 C.F.R.
cited Cited "see" National Conference of Bar Examiners v. Multistate Legal Studies, Inc.
7th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tubeco, Inc. v. Crippen Pipe Fabrications, Inc., 402 F.Supp. 838 (E.D.N.Y.1975), aff’d, 538 F.2d 314 (2d Cir. 1976).
discussed Cited "see" Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. v. Diamond Shamrock Corp.
W.D.N.Y. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally, Tubeco, Inc. v. Crippen Pipe Fabrication Corp., 402 F.Supp. 838, 844 (E.D.N.Y. 1975), aff’d mem., 538 F.2d 314 (2d Cir. 1976); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270 , 61 S.Ct. 510 , 85 L,Ed. 826 (1941). .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Manildra Milling Corporation, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Ogilvie Mills, Inc. v. Henkel Corporation and Henkel of America, Inc., Third-Party and John Thomas Honan, Counterclaim
3rd Cir. · 1993 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Tubeco, Inc. v. Crippen Pipe Fabrication Corp., 402 F.Supp. 838, 847 , 187 USPQ 746, 752 (E.D.N.Y.1975) (communications to customers and prospective licensees regarding patent are "in no sense the false advertising at which the Lanham Act was aimed."), aff'd, 538 F.2d 314 (2d Cir.1976) (table); cf. Lang v. Pacific Marine & Supply Co., 703 F.Supp. 1404, 1411 , 10 USPQ2d 1058, 1063 (D.Haw.1989) (section 43(a) is intended to reach false advertising violations, not false patent claims), aff'd, 895 F.2d 761 , 13 USPQ2d 1820 (Fed.Cir.1990); compare with Brandt Consol., Inc. v. Agrimar Cor…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Airship Industries (UK) Ltd. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
S.D.N.Y. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id. at 220 ; see also Tubeco, Inc. v. Crippen Pipe Fabrication Corp., 402 F.Supp. 838, 844 (E.D.N.Y.1975) (“Indeed, even a disclaimer by the defendant patentee that such a charge will never be made against the plaintiff does not obviate an actual controversy if the defendant’s *760 patent conduct vis-a-vis licensees, who are also plaintiff's customers, concretely threatens plaintiff’s business”), aff'd, 538 F.2d 314 (2d Cir.1976).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Tucker
v.
Meskill
75-7326.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Jan 12, 1976.
538 F.2d 314
Published

538 F.2d 314

Tucker
v.
Meskill

No. 75-7326

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

1/12/76

1

D.Conn.

AFFIRMED