From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Coastal Dynamics Corp. v. Symbolic Displays

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 4, 1972
469 F.2d 79 (9th Cir. 1972)

Summary

holding the doctrine invalid

Summary of this case from TIMM MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SOMA BLUE, INC.

Opinion

No. 26703.

August 4, 1972.

John E. Kelly (argued), Ralph B. Pastoriza, of Pastoriza Kelly, Santa Monica, Cal., for plaintiff and appellant.

Grover A. Frater (argued), Harvey C. Nienow, of Nienow Frater, Santa Ana, Cal., for defendants and appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before CHAMBERS and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges, and COPPLE, District Judge.

Honorable William P. Copple, United States District Judge, Phoenix, Arizona, sitting by designation.


The summary judgment of the district court that Coastal Dynamics design patent 208,474 on a miniature electric lamp is invalid is affirmed.

As a general rule, summary judgments in patent cases do not fare well, except experience does show they are sometimes appropriate in design patents which usually do not involve complicated factual situations. We find this case to be one where it was justified.

It is asserted by Coastal Dynamics that the trial court failed to find either way on its issue of "assignor estoppel."

We are satisfied that by inference he did rule that the point was without merit and such a result is required by the dicta in Lear, Incorporated v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653, 89 S.Ct. 1905, 23 L. Ed.2d 610, wherein licensee estoppel is considered. We are not persuaded that assignor estoppel requires any different rule. So no purpose could be served by a remand for an express ruling on assignor estoppel on the facts of this case.


Summaries of

Coastal Dynamics Corp. v. Symbolic Displays

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 4, 1972
469 F.2d 79 (9th Cir. 1972)

holding the doctrine invalid

Summary of this case from TIMM MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SOMA BLUE, INC.

refusing to remand for a express ruling on assignor estoppel because unconvinced that assignor estoppel requires different rule from that set forth in Lear regarding licensee estoppel and lower court did rule on licensee estoppel

Summary of this case from Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. Cepheid
Case details for

Coastal Dynamics Corp. v. Symbolic Displays

Case Details

Full title:COASTAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. SYMBOLIC…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 4, 1972

Citations

469 F.2d 79 (9th Cir. 1972)

Citing Cases

TIMM MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SOMA BLUE, INC.

SeeDiamond Scientific Co., v. Ambico, Inc., 848 F.2d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("The federal court cases,…

Schlegel Manufacturing Co. v. USM Corp.

In other circuits the Lear public policy considerations have found a wide range of application to traditional…