Legal Opinion
Maskery v. Kopp
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided May 12, 1976No. Civ. No. H 75-268PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS
CLARIE, Chief Judge.
The defendant has moved to dismiss this qui tam action brought pursuant to 35' U.S.C. § 292 and 28 U.S.C. § 1338, on the ground that venue does not properly lie in this District. The motion is denied.
The statutory basis for the action, 35 U.S.C. § 292, provides a fine of not more than $500 for marking upon, affixing to, or using in advertising in connection with any unpatented article, the word “patent,” or any word or number importing that the article is patented, for the purpose of deceiving the public. The complaint alleges that the defendant…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Felt ex rel. United States v. Ronson Art Metal Works, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1952
- Julian B. Slevin Company v. Bartgis Brothers CompanyDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1956
- Hat-Sweat Manuf'g Co. v. Davis Sewing-Machine Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1887
- Hotchkiss v. Samuel Cupples Wooden-Ware Co.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1891
- Lase Co. v. Wein Products, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1973
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Texas Data Co., LLC v. Target Brands, Inc.District Court, E.D. Texas · 2011