Engineering Specialties Co. v. Burgess Battery Co.

S.D. New York

Engineering Specialties Co. v. Burgess Battery Co.

40 F. Supp. 1014, 50 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 378, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2831

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided July 12, 1941·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

CONGER, District Judge.

From a reading of the conflicting affidavits of the experts here, I feel constrained to deny the defendant’s application for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s patent has never been adjudicated and the fact that certain references herein were before the Patent Office lends greater presumptive force to the issuance of said patent. General Electric Co. v. Save Sales Co., 6 Cir., 82 F.2d 100. In view of this presumption of validity of plaintiff’s patent, defendant’s contention that said patent does not evidence sufficient improvement over the prior art to constitute invention should be resolved upon a trial wherein experts of both parties may be subjected to cross-examination. Weil v. N. J. Richman Co., Inc., D.C., 34 F.Supp. 401; Refractolite Corp. v. Prismo Holding Corp., D.C., 25 F.Supp. 965.

Accordingly defendant’s motion for summary judgment herein is denied. Settle order on notice.

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

CONGER, District Judge.

From a reading of the conflicting affidavits of the experts here, I feel constrained to deny the defendant’s application for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s patent has never been adjudicated and the fact that certain references herein were before the Patent Office lends greater presumptive force to the issuance of said patent. General Electric Co. v. Save Sales Co., 6 Cir., 82 F.2d 100. In view of this presumption of validity of plaintiff’s patent, defendant’s contention that said patent does not evidence sufficient improvement over the prior art to constitute invention should be resolved upon a trial wherein experts of both parties may be subjected to cross-examination. Weil v. N. J. Richman Co., Inc., D.C., 34 F.Supp. 401; Refractolite Corp. v. Prismo Holding Corp., D.C., 25 F.Supp. 965.

Accordingly defendant’s motion for summary judgment herein is denied. Settle order on notice.

Engineering Specialties Co. v. Burgess Battery Co., 40 F. Supp. 1014, 50 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 378, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2831 (S.D.N.Y. 1941).

Pincite

40 F. Supp. 1014 (Engineering Specialties Co. v. Burgess Battery Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related