Standard Corrugated Case Corp. v. Servbest Co.

S.D. New York

Standard Corrugated Case Corp. v. Servbest Co.

38 F. Supp. 1020, 49 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 240, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3374

DecidedMarch 3, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 38 F. Supp. 1020 (Standard Corrugated Case Corp. v. Servbest Co.) 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

Standard Corrugated Case Corp. v. Servbest Co., 38 F. Supp. 1020, 49 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 240, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3374 (S.D.N.Y. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

MANDELBAUM, District Judge.

Plaintiff moves for a temporary injunction on two unadjudicated patents. The court, after examining - the affidavits, exhibits, and the authorities submitted by both sides, is constrained to deny the motion. It is the generally accepted rule that courts will refuse a preliminary, injunction in the absence of prior adjudication or public acquiescence when there is any fair question as to invention, anticipation, construction, infringement or title. I believe that such fair questions have been presented by the° defendant. United States Can Corporation v. American Can Company, D.C., 31 F. Supp. 91; Metropolitan Button Works, Inc. v. Jaffe, et al., D.C., 19 F.Supp. 860; Rosenberg et al. v. Groov-Pin Corporation, 2 Cir., 81 F.2d 46, 47, 48. In addition to the foregoing I believe that the plaintiff has been guilty of laches which should defeat an application of this character.

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

MANDELBAUM, District Judge.

Plaintiff moves for a temporary injunction on two unadjudicated patents. The court, after examining - the affidavits, exhibits, and the authorities submitted by both sides, is constrained to deny the motion. It is the generally accepted rule that courts will refuse a preliminary, injunction in the absence of prior adjudication or public acquiescence when there is any fair question as to invention, anticipation, construction, infringement or title. I believe that such fair questions have been presented by the° defendant. United States Can Corporation v. American Can Company, D.C., 31 F. Supp. 91; Metropolitan Button Works, Inc. v. Jaffe, et al., D.C., 19 F.Supp. 860; Rosenberg et al. v. Groov-Pin Corporation, 2 Cir., 81 F.2d 46, 47, 48. In addition to the foregoing I believe that the plaintiff has been guilty of laches which should defeat an application of this character.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 F. Supp. 1020, 49 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 240, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/standard-corrugated-case-corp-v-servbest-co-nysd-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack