John Laka, D/B/A Laka Tool & Stamping Company, and Laka Tool & Stamping Company, Inc. v. Columbia Pen & Pencil Company, Inc., and Bertram A. Strauss

Second Circuit

John Laka, D/B/A Laka Tool & Stamping Company, and Laka Tool & Stamping Company, Inc. v. Columbia Pen & Pencil Company, Inc., and Bertram A. Strauss

324 F.2d 179

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 13, 1963

Docket28356

StatusPublished

This text of 324 F.2d 179 (John Laka, D/B/A Laka Tool & Stamping Company, and Laka Tool & Stamping Company, Inc. v. Columbia Pen & Pencil Company, Inc., and Bertram A. Strauss) 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

John Laka, D/B/A Laka Tool & Stamping Company, and Laka Tool & Stamping Company, Inc. v. Columbia Pen & Pencil Company, Inc., and Bertram A. Strauss, 324 F.2d 179 (2d Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

324 F.2d 179

John LAKA, d/b/a Laka Tool & Stamping Company, and Laka Tool & Stamping Company, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
COLUMBIA PEN & PENCIL COMPANY, Inc., and Bertram A. Strauss, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 120.

Docket 28356.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued October 30, 1963.

Decided November 13, 1963.

John M. Calimafde, New York City, N. Y., for appellants. Hopgood & Calimafde, Eugene J. Kalil, and Paul H. Blaustein, New York City, of counsel.

Holman & Holman, Mineola, N. Y., for appellees. Bader & Bader, New York City, Assoc. Attys. I. Walton Bader, New York City, of counsel.

Before SWAN, CLARK and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appeal from a decree dismissing their complaint in a suit charging infringement of the three claims of Patent No. 2,907,302, issued on October 6, 1959 to L. Raszl, assignor to Laka Tool and Stamping Company, Westbury, N. Y. The patent is for control mechanism of a ball point pen. Judge Mishler found that the claims were anticipated by the prior art and that Raszl's combination would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. We see no necessity for adding to his well-reasoned opinion. The decree is affirmed.

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

324 F.2d 179

John LAKA, d/b/a Laka Tool & Stamping Company, and Laka Tool & Stamping Company, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
COLUMBIA PEN & PENCIL COMPANY, Inc., and Bertram A. Strauss, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 120.

Docket 28356.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued October 30, 1963.

Decided November 13, 1963.

John M. Calimafde, New York City, N. Y., for appellants. Hopgood & Calimafde, Eugene J. Kalil, and Paul H. Blaustein, New York City, of counsel.

Holman & Holman, Mineola, N. Y., for appellees. Bader & Bader, New York City, Assoc. Attys. I. Walton Bader, New York City, of counsel.

Before SWAN, CLARK and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appeal from a decree dismissing their complaint in a suit charging infringement of the three claims of Patent No. 2,907,302, issued on October 6, 1959 to L. Raszl, assignor to Laka Tool and Stamping Company, Westbury, N. Y. The patent is for control mechanism of a ball point pen. Judge Mishler found that the claims were anticipated by the prior art and that Raszl's combination would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. We see no necessity for adding to his well-reasoned opinion. The decree is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

324 F.2d 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-laka-dba-laka-tool-stamping-company-and-laka-tool-stamping-ca2-1963.