Legal Opinion
Penmac Corporation v. Esterbrook Steel Pen Mfg. Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 31, 1939PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WOOLSEY, District Judge.
My judgment in this cause is:
1. That Claims Nos. 1, 2, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 36 and 37 of United States Patent No. 1,866,072, and Claims Nos. 6, 7, 10, 12 and 13 of United States Patent No. 1,928,042 are valid and were infringed by the defendant herein.
2. That Claims Nos. 4, 15, 16 and 21 of United States Patent No. 1,700,255, Claim No. 33 of United States Patent No. 1,700,246, and Claim No. 7 of United States Patent No. 1,700,257 are invalid for lack of invention over the prior art.
3. That, accordingly, there should be an interlocutory judgment for the plaintiff…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Traitel Marble Co. v. U. T. Hungerford Brass & Copper Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1927
- Hazeltine Corporation v. Radio Corporation of AmericaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1931
- Lemley v. Dobson-Evans Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1917
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Monaghan v. HillCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1944
- Klimkiewicz v. Westminster Deposit & Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941
- Penmac Corp. v. Esterbrook Steel Pen Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1940
- Biermann v. SheaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1939
- In re Imperial Irr. DistDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1941
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.