Lewis Invisible Stitch MacH. Co. v. Columbia Blindstitch MacH. Mfg. Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
WOOLSEY, District Judge.
I hold that the single claim of the table patent No. 1,764,573 is invalid as not involving any inventive act over the prior art.
I hold that claims 1, 3, 8, and 10 of the automatic disc patent No. 1,905,291, on which the plaintiff relies in the first cause of action, are valid but not infringed.
■ I hold that claims 1, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the automatic disc patent No. 1,989,602, on which the plaintiff relies in the first cause of action, are valid and infringed by what we have called the defendant’s earlier disc.
I hold that claims 1 -and 19 of the automatic disc patent…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Stelos Co. v. Hosiery Motor-Mend Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Art Metal Works, Inc. v. Abraham & Straus, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
- Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1935
- Stelos Co. v. Hosiery Motor-Mend CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
- Hazeltine Corporation v. Radio CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1937
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Basevi v. Edward O'Toole Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1939
- Marks v. Polaroid CorporationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1955
- Knaust Bros. v. GoldschlagDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1939
- Scovill Mfg. Co. v. United States Electric Mfg. Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1940
- Hall v. KellerDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1948
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.