Home/S.D. California/Bourns v. Edcliff Instruments

Bourns v. Edcliff Instruments

125 F. Supp. 503, 103 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 369, 1954 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2695
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedJuly 15, 1954
DocketCiv. No. 14764
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 125 F. Supp. 503 (Bourns v. Edcliff Instruments) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bourns v. Edcliff Instruments, 125 F. Supp. 503, 103 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 369, 1954 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2695 (S.D. Cal. 1954).

Opinion

YANKWICH, Chief Judge.

Action for infringement of patent No. 2,515,981, issued to M. E. Bourns on July 18, 1950. The defendants have denied infringement and have attacked the validity of the patent. ' No claim of invention by them is asserted by the defendants. Their challenge of the validity of the patent is based on claimed anticipation.

I

The Validity of the Patent in Suit.

The issues, as narrowed by the proof, concern the validity of the single claim of the patent, which reads:

“An adjustable resistor comprising a base having a groove therein, a shaft reciprocably mounted in said groove, a post mounted transversely to said shaft and slidable back and forth in said groove, a resilient contact place secured to said post, a cover mounted to said base over said groove, an elongate resistance element and an electrically conductive elongate strip disposed parallel and mounted to the inner face of said cover and engaging the ends of said resilient plate, a pair of ter[504]*504mináis passing thru and secured in said cover, the inner ends of said terminals being electrically attached to said element ends, and a third terminal passing thru and secured to said cover and electrically attached to said elongate strip.”

The invention is denominated an “adjustable resistor”, and is known in industry as a “potentiometer.”

The inventor has illustrated his invention in two embodiments. (See illustrations.) The validity of the claim is challenged. The challenge lacks merit.

[505]*505

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

Related

Sarkes Tarzian, Inc. v. Audio Devices, Inc.
166 F. Supp. 250 (S.D. California, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 F. Supp. 503, 103 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 369, 1954 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bourns-v-edcliff-instruments-casd-1954.