Home/D. Minnesota/Doughboy Industries, Inc. v. Goff

Doughboy Industries, Inc. v. Goff

110 F. Supp. 358, 97 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 211, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3091
CourtDistrict Court, D. Minnesota
DecidedFebruary 10, 1953
DocketCiv. No. 1853
StatusPublished

This text of 110 F. Supp. 358 (Doughboy Industries, Inc. v. Goff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Doughboy Industries, Inc. v. Goff, 110 F. Supp. 358, 97 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 211, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3091 (mnd 1953).

Opinion

DONOVAN, District Judge.

This is a patent and trade-mark infringement suit. Plaintiff Doughboy Industries, Inc., alleged infringement and breach of contract, with the accompanying request for an accounting and injunctive relief. By stipulation, Harris Trust & Savings Bank of Chicago, Illinois, and W. H. Milsted, as trustees, were joined as parties plaintiff herein. At the opening of the trial defendants announced that they conceded the validity of the patent upon which this suit is based.1

There is little, if any, dispute about the facts. For convenience, plaintiffs’ patent will be referred to by that name. The alleged infringing patent will be referred to as the accused patent.

Defendant Kubista was the inventor of plaintiffs’ patent, described as “a fount for poultry”, and also of the accused patent,, described as “a drinking fount for poultry.”' On December 21, 1944, Kubista entered into an agreement with plaintiff Doughboy Industries, Inc., whereby he transferred title to said plaintiff of patent numbered 2,387,-644, and further agreed “not to manufacture or sell any other similar or competitive type of poultry water founts.” On January 22, 1946, Design No. 143,604 was issued to Kubista, and on February 14, 1946, this was-assigned to plaintiff Doughboy Industries,. Inc. Following this, on March 25, 1946, Kubista made application for the'issuance of the accused patent, numbered 2,501,-727,2 which was assigned by Kubista to defendant Miller Manufacturing Company.

A detailed description of all claims of thepatentee would prolong this discussion beyond reasonable limits, and would serve no useful purpose. An intelligent understanding of the claims made for the patents in suit can best be had by a comparison of the drawings and claim No. 1 in plaintiffs’ patent and the accused patent, reproduced' herein as follows:

[360]*360

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

Related

Mitchell v. Tilghman
86 U.S. 287 (Supreme Court, 1874)
Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. v. Formica Insulation Co.
266 U.S. 342 (Supreme Court, 1924)
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.
325 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 1945)
General Motors Corporation v. Kesling
164 F.2d 824 (Eighth Circuit, 1947)
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Clair
123 F.2d 878 (Eighth Circuit, 1941)
Irvin v. Buick Motor Co.
88 F.2d 947 (Eighth Circuit, 1937)
G. H. Packwood Mfg. Co. v. St. Louis Janitor Supply Co.
115 F.2d 958 (Eighth Circuit, 1940)
Royal Typewriter Co. v. Remington Rand, Inc.
168 F.2d 691 (Second Circuit, 1948)
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Talge
140 F.2d 395 (Eighth Circuit, 1944)
Penmac Corp. v. Esterbrook Steel Pen Mfg. Co.
108 F.2d 695 (Second Circuit, 1940)
Custom Undergarment Corp. v. R. H. Macy & Co.
140 F.2d 197 (Second Circuit, 1944)
Electric Protection Co. v. American Bank Protection Co.
184 F. 916 (Eighth Circuit, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 F. Supp. 358, 97 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 211, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3091, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doughboy-industries-inc-v-goff-mnd-1953.