Magic Fingers, Inc. v. Robert E. Auger

First Circuit

Magic Fingers, Inc. v. Robert E. Auger

339 F.2d 604, 144 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 114

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·Decided December 30, 1964·No. 6408_1·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The very most that can be said for the appellant’s patent is that it discloses a mere mechanic’s adaptation of a device in public use and on sale more than a year before the patent was applied for to make that earlier device more readily attachable to the basic structure with, which it was designed to cooperate to-produce a vibrating chair or bed. We-see no need to elaborate upon the District Court’s fully and carefully reasoned opinion. D.C., 232 F.Supp. 372.

Judgment will be entered affirming the-judgment of the District Court dismissing count one of the plaintiff’s complaint.

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

PER CURIAM.

The very most that can be said for the appellant’s patent is that it discloses a mere mechanic’s adaptation of a device in public use and on sale more than a year before the patent was applied for to make that earlier device more readily attachable to the basic structure with, which it was designed to cooperate to-produce a vibrating chair or bed. We-see no need to elaborate upon the District Court’s fully and carefully reasoned opinion. D.C., 232 F.Supp. 372.

Judgment will be entered affirming the-judgment of the District Court dismissing count one of the plaintiff’s complaint.

Magic Fingers, Inc. v. Robert E. Auger, 339 F.2d 604, 144 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 114 (1st Cir. 1964).

Pincite

339 F.2d 604 (Magic Fingers, Inc. v. Robert E. Auger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related