Legal Opinion
Hills v. Federal Optical Co.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided September 28, 1923No. 1763PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.
This patent infringement suit is now before the court on two motions: Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss without prejudice; and defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground that claims 1 and 5, the only ones sued upon, are void for lack of invention. The patent is No. 1,371,413, issued to W. P. Devine on Marcia 15, 1921, for spectacles.
1. The first question is as to whether plaintiff’s motion to dismiss without prejudice must, as of right, be allowed. The answer to this question is not free from doubt. The bill was filed on September 19, 1922. After some intervening…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Brown v. PiperSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Dunbar v. MyersSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Slawson v. Grand Street RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Richards v. Chase Elevator Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
- American Fibre-Chamois Co. v. Buckskin-Fibre Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1896
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- A. C. Gilbert Co. v. United Electrical Mfg. Co.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1929
- Turner v. GoldsteinCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1946
- Elliott Addressing Mach. Co. v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1937
- Ellis-Foster Co. v. Aldur Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 1932