Legal Opinion
Appel v. Lilling
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided April 26, 1945PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GODDARD, District Judge.
The defendant has moved for summary judgment under Rule 56 dismissing the complaint on the ground that the patent on which the suit is based is invalid for double patenting.
The suit is for the infringement of Patent No. 2,256,645. This patent, issued on September 23, 1941, to Florence Kuhlman on an application filed March 28, 1941, and assigned to Robert Appel, is for a decorative material, such as may be‘ used on handbags. Claim 2 of the patent is typical: “In a decorative material, a plurality of decorative units arranged side by side each comprising a hollow rigid…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- H. C. White Co. v. Morton E. Converse & Son Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1927
- Bayley & Sons, Inc. v. Standart Art Glass Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1918
- Murdock v. Vaughan Novelty Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1942
- Western Electric Co. v. General Talking Pictures Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1937
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Ropat Corporation v. McGraw Company, and Marshall Field & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1976
- Transmatic, Inc. v. Gulton Industries, Inc., and Patent License Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1979
- Transmatic, Inc. v. Gulton Industries, Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1977