Legal Opinion
Automatic Toy Corp. v. Buddy "L" Mfg. Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided January 18, 1938PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
LEIBELL, District Judge.
I have signed the defendants’ proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The Bill of Complaint is dismissed, for want of infringement, with costs. Defendants’ counsel has submitted an excellent brief in which he has clearly described the scope and differences of plaintiff’s patents, the prior art and the patent under which defendants have constructed their toy automobile. I have borrowed freely from the descriptive features of the brief in this memorandum.
The invention claimed in the two patents in suit is for an automatic steering mechanism whereby, as the toy…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Fur Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Electro-Dynamic Co. v. United States Light & Heat Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
- Frank F. Smith Metal Window Hardware Co. v. YatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1914
- Abbott Coin Counter Co. v. Standard-Johnson Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1923
3Cited by1 opinion
- F. E. Myers & Brother Co. v. Goulds Pumps, Inc.District Court, W.D. New York · 1950