Legal Opinion · Dissent

Laurie Visual Etudes, Inc. v. Chesebrough-Pond's, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 9, 1981Published

1DissentSilverman, J.

I would not order a new trial but would dismiss the complaint. It is a basic principle of patent law that in exchange for the patent monopoly, the patent holder must make a complete disclosure as to the invention, including the basic idea of the invention, its utility, and a physical embodiment of the patent (cf. Ferber v Sterndent Corp., 51 NY2d 782; Platzman v American Totalisator Co., 45 NY2d 910), and the patent holder is the last one in the world who should be permitted to contend there is more to his invention or idea that was not disclosed in the patent. “We would remind them [patent…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Ferber v. Sterndent Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
  2. Platzman v. American Totalisator Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1978
  3. Laurie Visual Etudes, Inc. v. Chesebrough-Pond's Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1980

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API