Legal Opinion
Kollsman Instrument Corp. v. Astek Instrument Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided January 9, 1964PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WYATT, District Judge.
The motion is by defendant (“Astek”)-for a summary judgment in an action; for patent infringement. The judgment is demanded on defendant’s amended! counterclaim for a declaratory judgment; the nature of the judgment demanded is-that the device “presently being made- and sold by defendant” (emphasis supplied) does not infringe the patent in; suit. The motion is thus for a partial' summary judgment and is authorized by Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(b).
The motion is denied in the exercise of discretion, primarily because if' the issue of present infringement, as-posed by the amended…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Stewart-Warner Corporation v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, and Canadian Westinghousecompany, Ltd., Intervenor-Defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1964
- Paul E. Hawkinson Co. v. DennisCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1948
- Engineering Development Laboratories v. Radio Corp. of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- Refractolite Corporation v. Prismo Holding CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1938
- Bucky v. SeboDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1951
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- The Scam Instrument Corporation v. Control Data CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1972
- Xerox Corporation v. Dennison Manufacturing CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1971
- Mary Taylor, Administratrix of the Estate of John H. Taylor, Deceased v. Rederi A/s Volo v. Lavino Shipping Company, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1967
- Voege v. AckermanDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1973
- Metal Coating Corp. v. Baker Manufacturing Co.District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1964
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.