Coastal Dynamics Corporation, and v. Symbolic Displays, Inc., and Gerald A. Curl, And

Ninth Circuit

Coastal Dynamics Corporation, and v. Symbolic Displays, Inc., and Gerald A. Curl, And

469 F.2d 79, 175 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 81

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 4, 1972

Docket26703

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 469 F.2d 79 (Coastal Dynamics Corporation, and v. Symbolic Displays, Inc., and Gerald A. Curl, And) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coastal Dynamics Corporation, and v. Symbolic Displays, Inc., and Gerald A. Curl, And, 469 F.2d 79, 175 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 81 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The summary judgment of the district court that Coastal Dynamics design patent 208,474 on a miniature electric lamp is invalid is affirmed.

As a general rule, summary judgments in patent cases do not fare well, except experience does show they are sometimes appropriate in design patents which usually do not involve complicated factual situations. We find this case to be one where it was justified.

It is asserted by Coastal Dynamics that the trial court failed to find either way on its issue of “assignor estoppel.”

We are satisfied that by inference he did rule that the point was without merit and such a result is required by the dicta in Lear, Incorporated v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653, 89 S.Ct. 1905, 23 L. Ed.2d 610, wherein licensee estoppel is considered. We are not persuaded that assignor estoppel requires any different rule. So no purpose could be served by a remand for an express ruling- on assignor estoppel on the facts of this case.

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