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

Second Circuit

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

326 F.2d 204

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided December 13, 1963·No. No. 141, Docket 28329·Published

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.

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

Pincite

326 F.2d 204 (J. & G. Development Co. v. All-Tronics, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related