Koehring Company v. National Automatic Tool Company, Inc.

385 F.2d 414, 155 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 231
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedOctober 4, 1967
Docket15913_1
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 385 F.2d 414 (Koehring Company v. National Automatic Tool Company, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Koehring Company v. National Automatic Tool Company, Inc., 385 F.2d 414, 155 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 231 (7th Cir. 1967).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff sued to recover damages for infringement of its Patent No. 2,821,750 and for assignment of defendant’s Patent Nos. 2,804,752 and 2,896,257 (and the corresponding British and Canadian patents). It also charged certain acts of unfair competition. In a thorough opinion, the District Court upheld the validity of the fifth claim of Patent No. 2,821,750 and concluded that plaintiff was entitled to damages for infringement. The Court refused to order an assignment of Patent No. 2,804,-752, on the ground that this invention was conceived by employees of defendant after they had left plaintiff’s employ. The same ruling was made with respect to Patent No. 2,896,257, on the ground that the patent was invalid. Finally, the Court held that plaintiff was entitled to recover an amount equal to the time saved by defendant in designing machines through use of certain of plaintiff’s drawings and written information. See 257 F.Supp. 282. We do not find it necessary to consider the defense of laches discussed in the opinion nor, of course, do we consider matters not appealed. We adopt the remainder of the opinion.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

WILKINS v. GENZYME CORPORATION
D. Massachusetts, 2022
Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Bryan
784 F. Supp. 982 (E.D. New York, 1992)
B & B Paint Corp. v. Shrock Manufacturing, Inc.
568 N.E.2d 1017 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1991)
Davis v. Geo. S. Olive & Co.
731 F. Supp. 1380 (S.D. Indiana, 1990)
Bell v. Metropolitan School Dist. of Shakamak
582 F. Supp. 3 (S.D. Indiana, 1983)
Shideler v. Dwyer
417 N.E.2d 281 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1981)
Louis Marx & Co., Inc. v. Buddy L Corp.
453 F. Supp. 392 (S.D. New York, 1978)
Johnson v. United States
527 F.2d 1209 (Court of Claims, 1975)
Frequency Electronics, Inc. v. NAT. RADIO CO., INC.
422 F. Supp. 609 (S.D. New York, 1975)
Cole v. University of Hartford
391 F. Supp. 888 (D. Connecticut, 1975)
Telex Corp. v. International Business MacHines Corp.
367 F. Supp. 258 (N.D. Oklahoma, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
385 F.2d 414, 155 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koehring-company-v-national-automatic-tool-company-inc-ca7-1967.