Home/N.D. West Virginia/Akro Agate Co. v. Master Marble Co.

Akro Agate Co. v. Master Marble Co.

18 F. Supp. 305, 1937 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2087
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. West Virginia
DecidedJanuary 16, 1937
Docket119
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 18 F. Supp. 305 (Akro Agate Co. v. Master Marble Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. West Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Akro Agate Co. v. Master Marble Co., 18 F. Supp. 305, 1937 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2087 (N.D.W. Va. 1937).

Opinion

BAKER, District Judge.

This is a patent suit begun on- March 28, 1933, against the Master Marble Company and four individual defendants, who are officers, directors, and owners of the majority of the stock of the defendant corporation.

*307 Defendants moved to dismiss the hill as to the individual defendants and to strike out paragraphs 7 and 8 of the bill of complaint. These motions were overruled on July 7, 1933. The answer was filed on July 29, 1933, setting up a counterclaim asserting unfair trade practices. Plaintiff’s answer to counterclaim denying any such practices was filed on August 26, 1933. Defendants on October 5, 1933, filed an amendment to their answer setting up additional prior uses and references.

This action involves on the part of plaintiff a charge of patent infringement by the corporate defendant; a charge of individual infringement by the four executives, or active officers of the defendant corporation; and a charge of conspiracy on the part of the individual defendants to create and enter into the business of manufacturing and selling marbles in competition with plaintiff. No prayer for relief based on the conspiracy.

The following is a list of the cuts considered in this opinion, and immediately following such list are the cuts of the various patents dealt with in this proceeding, which are hereby made a part of this opinion:

*308 Pursuant to Equity Rule No. 70% (28 U.S.C.A. following section 723), I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

Findings of Fact.

Early Patent of 1930, No. 1,761,623.

1. The Early patent of 1930, No. 1,-761,623, purports to cover a machine for the making of glass marbles:

This machine comprises a pair of oppositely arranged rolls having opposing helical peripheral grooves with means for simultaneously rotating said rolls upwardly and downwardly at their respective working points; and has means effective from the beginning of the formation of each article for causing the article being formed to rotate positively about constantly changing axes, said means comprising arranging the groove on the upwardly moving roll to have a lead or offset in one direction only on the groove on the downwardly moving roll. The claimed novelty in this patent is the offsetting of one grooved roll with respect to the other. The machine otherwise is the same as that shown in Hill patent, No. 1,164,718, of December 21, 1915, which is acknowledged and referred to in this Early patent, No. 1,761,623.

*309

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Roche Products, Inc. v. Bolar Pharmaceuticals Co.
572 F. Supp. 255 (E.D. New York, 1983)
Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Bulldog Electric Products Co.
106 F. Supp. 819 (N.D. West Virginia, 1952)
Hall v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
57 F. Supp. 430 (N.D. West Virginia, 1944)
Duncan & Miller Glass Co. v. Hazel Atlas Glass Co.
47 F. Supp. 192 (N.D. West Virginia, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 F. Supp. 305, 1937 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/akro-agate-co-v-master-marble-co-wvnd-1937.