Legal Opinion
Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. v. American Bowling & Billiard Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided April 10, 1945No. 71PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
1. The Patent:
Claim 1 of Hedenskoog patent No. 1,714,-310, dated August 11, 1928, discloses a device for controlling the movement of bowling-balls on return ways in bowling-alleys. The trial judge held that it was not infringed by defendant’s device. Having so decided, he held that he could not consider the defense of invalidity or the counterclaim of defendant, American, which sought a declaratory judgment of invalidity.
He was wrong. Even without the defendant’s counterclaim, to hold non-infringement did not preclude a holding of invalidity as an additional ground for…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Menendez v. HoltSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Altvater v. FreemanSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Columbia Mill Co. v. AlcornSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Lawrence Manufacturing Co. v. Tennessee Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Farmington Dowel Products Co. v. Forster Mfg. Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1970
- Harry A. Pursche v. Atlas Scraper and Engineering Co., a Corporation, Atlas Scraper and Engineering Co., a Corporation v. Harry A. PurscheCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1962
- Highland Supply Corporation v. Reynolds Metals Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1964
- Florence Wright and Roy Wright v. Carter Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1957
- New Jersey Wood Finishing Company v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, and Essexwire Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1964
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.