Legal Opinion
Borders v. Ray
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided April 17, 1942No. 933PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
SWEENEY, District Judge.
This is an action involving a patent covering a device described in the application as a “Friction Stop for Bowling Alleys”. The plaintiff charges infringement, and seeks an injunction and damages. The defendant denies the validity of the patent, asserting that the device is a mere mechanical expedient devoid of patentable invention, and denies infringement.
Findings of Fact
The only claim in suit is claim 1, which reads as follows: “In a bowling alley having a foul line and an approach, a frictional element having a surface with a coefficient of friction materially…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Reckendorfer v. FaberSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- National Mach. Corp. v. Benthall Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1916
- Aro Equipment Corporation v. Herring-Wissler Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1936
- National Safety Lift Co. v. AndersonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1921
- J. J. Warren Co. v. RosenblattCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1897
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- E. Clemens Horst Co. v. OesteDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1953