Metaframe Corporation v. Biozonics Corporation
District Court, D. Massachusetts
1Opinion of the Court
RUBIN, * District Judge:
In a competitive struggle, almost as determined as that of two male betta splendens, or Siamese fighting fish, the manufacturers of concededly similar aquarium filtering devices, one the patent assignee, the other its challenger, here join battle to determine the validity of the patent. Since the patent is virtually conceded to possess utility, the victory turns on whether the two other legislative requisites 1 are met: whether the device was obvious at the time it was conceived to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and whether the concept was novel. The issues are…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Atlantic Works v. BradySupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Hotchkiss v. GreenwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Novelart Manufacturing Co. v. Carlin Container Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1973
- Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Gillette Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1981
- Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Eastern Fine Paper, Inc.District Court, D. Maine · 1981