Knaust Bros. v. Goldschlag
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
WOOLSEY, District Judge.
I dismiss the complaint herein on the ground that Claims Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 of United States Patent No. 2,034,678 are invalid for want of invention.
I grant the prayer of the defendants’ counterclaim asking a declaration that all the eight claims of United States Patent No. 2,034,678 and the four claims of United States Patent No. 2,097,766 are invalid for want of invention.
I grant to the defendants taxable costs and all disbursements and allowances of every kind which are taxable.
I. My subject matter jurisdiction in this cause is based on the patent law in…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- DeForest Radio Co. v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Leach v. Ross Heater & Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939
- Pyrene Mfg. Co. v. BoyceCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1923
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Treemond Co. v. Schering CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1941
- Wells v. Universal Pictures Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
- Brown Paper Mill Co. v. IrvinCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1943
- Kawneer Co. v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 1952
- Benz v. J. Laskin & Sons Corp.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1942
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.