La Maur, Inc. v. DeMert & Dougherty, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
1Opinion of the Court
SUMMARY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MAROVITZ, District Judge.
After extensive review of the cumbersome briefs and records herein, I have concluded, as did the Eighth Circuit, that the Spiegel Patent is invalid. I am unable to accept plaintiff’s major theory that the functions of setting lotions and hair sprays are so divergent as to make plaintiff’s “invention” a sufficient advance over the prior art as developed in the Janistyn reference. That is, Janistyn’s water-PVP combination appears to leave an identical water-soluble film on a subject’s hair, and should not, via plaintiff’s semantic tricks, be…
2Cases cited61 opinions
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Paramount Publix Corp. v. American Triergon Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Dow Chemical Co. v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Muncie Gear Works, Inc. v. Outboard, Marine & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Standard Oil Company v. MontedisonDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1980
- Application of Henri-Georges DollCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1970
- Arthur J. Schmitt Foundation v. Stockham Valves & Fittings, Inc.District Court, N.D. Alabama · 1966
- Leach v. Rockwood & CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1967