Krasnow v. Sacks & Perry, Inc.

58 F. Supp. 828, 64 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 121, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2619
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 3, 1945
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 58 F. Supp. 828 (Krasnow v. Sacks & Perry, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Krasnow v. Sacks & Perry, Inc., 58 F. Supp. 828, 64 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 121, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2619 (S.D.N.Y. 1945).

Opinion

HULBERT, District Judge.

Plaintiff moved, pursuant to Rule 41(a) (2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, to dismiss the action, with prejudice, and defendant served a cross-motion for summary judgment, Rule 56(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action is one for alleged infringement of a designed patent. The bill of complaint was filed January 8, 1944. Defendant interposed its answer on February 14, 1944, and the case is now on the day calendar. Meanwhile, the plaintiff served interrogatories, which the defendant answered, and defendant has had an examination of the plaintiff before trial. Plaintiff concedes that such examination revealed his patent is not infringed and sought to withdraw the suit on the basis of non-infringement.

If the plaintiff cannot establish infringement, the Court is without power to determine that his patent is valid. Electrical Fittings Corporation v. Thomas & Betts, 307 U.S. 241, 242, 59 S.Ct. 860, 83 L.Ed. 1263; Katz v. Homi Signal Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 145 F.2d 961; Altvater v. Freeman, 319 U.S. 359, 363, 63 S.Ct. 1115, 87 L.Ed. 1450.

The defendant seeks an adjudication that the plaintiff’s patent is invalid. Cover v. Schwartz, 2 Cir., 133 F.2d 541, 545, certiorari denied 319 U.S. 748, 63 S.Ct. 1158, 87 L.Ed. 1703.

The Court is not persuaded that the record contains all of the essential elements upon which a judgment that the patent is invalid may be properly predicated and the defendant’s motion is, therefore, denied.

But the plaintiff brought the defendant into Court when, as it now appears, . a substantial doubt must have existed that his course was justified. His motion will, however, be granted, with prejudice. The defendant may have judgment in its favor for the taxable costs and disbursements, the fees of the stenographer reporting the examination before trial amounting to $45.75, and a counsel fee of $100. Submit order and judgment on notice.

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

Related

Murdock v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
154 F.R.D. 271 (M.D. Florida, 1994)
Harris v. Marsh
679 F. Supp. 1204 (E.D. North Carolina, 1987)
Colombrito v. Kelly
764 F.2d 122 (Second Circuit, 1985)
Lawrence v. Fuld
32 F.R.D. 329 (D. Maryland, 1963)
Union Nat. Bank of Youngstown v. Superior Steel Corp.
9 F.R.D. 117 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1949)
Zalkind v. Scheinman
80 F. Supp. 299 (S.D. New York, 1948)
Myerson v. Dentists' Supply Co. of New York
66 F. Supp. 31 (S.D. New York, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 F. Supp. 828, 64 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 121, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krasnow-v-sacks-perry-inc-nysd-1945.