Legal Opinion
George P. Converse & Co. v. Polaroid Corp.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided June 1, 1956No. 55-565PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ALDRICH, District Judge.
In this action for infringement of a container patent, Waters, No. 2,278,502, issued April 7,1942, defendants move for summary judgment. They previously moved to dismiss on the ground of lack of infringement, but I found there was on that question a possible issue of fact. D.C., 136 F.Supp. 912. The present motion, accompanied by copies of a number of prior and other roughly contemporaneous patents, is based on the contention that plaintiffs’ patent is void for lack of invention.
While defendants furnish what I have come to expect as the customary seller’s talk on the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Vermont Structural Slate Company, Inc. v. Tatko Brothers Slate Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1956
- Brisk Waterproofing Co., Inc. v. A. Belanger & Sons, IncCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1954
- George P. Converse & Co. v. Polaroid Corp.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1955
3Cited by5 opinions
- George P. Converse & Co., Inc. v. Polaroid CorporationCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1957
- Feldman v. BirgerDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1962
- Servaas & Co. v. DritzDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1960
- George P. Converse & Co. v. Standard Packaging Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1959
- George P. Converse & Co. v. Thomas J. Lipton, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1957