Cordley v. Richardson Corp.

Second Circuit

Cordley v. Richardson Corp.

280 F. 515, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 1823

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 6, 1922

DocketNo. 213

StatusPublished

This text of 280 F. 515 (Cordley v. Richardson Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cordley v. Richardson Corp., 280 F. 515, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 1823 (2d Cir. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We agree with the reasoning and conclusion of Hazel, J., who heard the case below, and think litigation over this patent a rather striking instance of an endeavor to put novelty and commercial success in the place of invention, a point we have recently commented on in Boston, etc., Co. v. Automatic, etc., Co., 276 Fed. 910.

It is quite true that, in deciding the point of invention, which is always a question of fact, courts should “view the subject-matter from the standpoint of the art concerned.” Kurtz v. Blatt (D. C.) 263 Fed. 392. But it is this view that is fatal to plaintiff’s contention, for the patent teaches the art nothing; it only rearranges old matter in a form probably attractive to the eye and useful for purposes of display.

Decree affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

We agree with the reasoning and conclusion of Hazel, J., who heard the case below, and think litigation over this patent a rather striking instance of an endeavor to put novelty and commercial success in the place of invention, a point we have recently commented on in Boston, etc., Co. v. Automatic, etc., Co., 276 Fed. 910.

It is quite true that, in deciding the point of invention, which is always a question of fact, courts should “view the subject-matter from the standpoint of the art concerned.” Kurtz v. Blatt (D. C.) 263 Fed. 392. But it is this view that is fatal to plaintiff’s contention, for the patent teaches the art nothing; it only rearranges old matter in a form probably attractive to the eye and useful for purposes of display.

Decree affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 F. 515, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 1823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cordley-v-richardson-corp-ca2-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack