J. & G. Development Co. v. All-Tronics, Inc.

Second Circuit

J. & G. Development Co. v. All-Tronics, Inc.

326 F.2d 204

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 13, 1963

DocketNo. 141, Docket 28329

StatusPublished

This text of 326 F.2d 204 (J. & G. Development Co. v. All-Tronics, Inc.) 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

J. & G. Development Co. v. All-Tronics, Inc., 326 F.2d 204 (2d Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs allege that defendant has infringed Patent No. 2,835,874, relating to the design and construction of electrical interference suppression filters. For the reasons stated in Judge Dooling’s thorough opinion below, 213 F.Supp. 723 (E.D.N.Y.1962), we find that the patented device was anticipated by the Tobe-Deutschmann filter 1547, 35 U.S.C. § 102, that there is not present in the patentees’ work sufficient invention to satisfy the standard of 35 U.S.C. § 103, and that on both these grounds plaintiffs’ patent is invalid. We thus find it unnecessary to determine whether plaintiffs had placed their filter on sale and in public use more than a year before the patent application was filed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs allege that defendant has infringed Patent No. 2,835,874, relating to the design and construction of electrical interference suppression filters. For the reasons stated in Judge Dooling’s thorough opinion below, 213 F.Supp. 723 (E.D.N.Y.1962), we find that the patented device was anticipated by the Tobe-Deutschmann filter 1547, 35 U.S.C. § 102, that there is not present in the patentees’ work sufficient invention to satisfy the standard of 35 U.S.C. § 103, and that on both these grounds plaintiffs’ patent is invalid. We thus find it unnecessary to determine whether plaintiffs had placed their filter on sale and in public use more than a year before the patent application was filed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

326 F.2d 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-g-development-co-v-all-tronics-inc-ca2-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack