Home/S.D. New York/Louis Marx & Co., Inc. v. Buddy L Corp.

Louis Marx & Co., Inc. v. Buddy L Corp.

453 F. Supp. 392, 202 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 277, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17491
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMay 30, 1978
Docket76 Civil 3703
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 453 F. Supp. 392 (Louis Marx & Co., Inc. v. Buddy L Corp.) 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
Louis Marx & Co., Inc. v. Buddy L Corp., 453 F. Supp. 392, 202 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 277, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17491 (S.D.N.Y. 1978).

Opinion

OPINION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

EDWARD WEINFELD, District Judge.

Plaintiff Louis Marx & Co. (“Marx”) and defendant Buddy L Corporation (“Buddy L”) are in the business of importing and selling toy typewriters. At the time in question both purchased their stock from a single Japanese manufacturer. Plaintiff sold the “Marxwriter” and defendant sold the Buddy L “Easy Writer” which are substantially similar in appearance and working parts. Marx, alleging infringement of one claim in each of two patents it owns and unfair competition, brought suit against Buddy L. 1 At the close of a four-day trial, the Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss one of the patent claims 2 and the unfair competition claim. 3 Although in its post-trial submission plaintiff seeks to reargue these matters, the Court is convinced that upon the facts and the law the proper disposition was made at that *394 time. 4 With those claims dismissed on the merits, there remains but one claim of patent infringement to be decided.

I

Marx owns patent number 3,338,369, which was issued to one W. E. Rexford, a former Marx employee, on August 29, 1967 (the “Rexford Patent”). Claim 15, which is allegedly infringed by Buddy L’s Easy Writer, provides:

15. In a typewriter of the class described, the combination including a frame, a plurality of keys moveably mounted in said frame, a plurality of type bar levers pivoted to said frame, one key being provided for each of said type bar levers, an escapement mechanism, a universal bar operatively connected to said escapement mechanism, and a plurality of key levers, each of said key levers including a key arm, a universal arm, a type bar arm and pivot means for pivotally supporting said key lever on said frame, said key lever arms intersecting and being coplanar at the intersection thereof and being substantially coplanar at points remote from said intersection, the outer end of said key arm cooperating with an associated one of said keys for actuation of said key lever, the outer end of said type bar arm cooperating with an associated one of said type bar levers for actuating same, and the outer end of said universal arm cooperating with said universal bar for actuation of said universal bar.

The claim is illustrated in the figures shown on following page.

*395 gzyLyABezfYQTu3g3zt3

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

Related

Gemveto Jewelry Co., Inc. v. Jeff Cooper Inc.
568 F. Supp. 319 (S.D. New York, 1983)
CTS Corp. v. Electro Materials Corp. of America
476 F. Supp. 144 (S.D. New York, 1979)
Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Allied Chemical Corp.
477 F. Supp. 371 (S.D. New York, 1979)
Louis Marx & Co. v. Fuji Seiko Co., Ltd.
453 F. Supp. 385 (S.D. New York, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
453 F. Supp. 392, 202 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 277, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louis-marx-co-inc-v-buddy-l-corp-nysd-1978.