From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Refractolite Corp. v. Prismo Holding Corp.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Dec 20, 1938
25 F. Supp. 965 (S.D.N.Y. 1938)

Opinion

December 20, 1938.

W.R. Liberman, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Hornidge Dowd, of New York City (John B. Hayward, of New York City, of counsel), for defendants.


Patent infringement suit by the Refractolite Corporation against the Prismo Holding Corporation and others. On motion for summary judgment.

Motion denied.


I think it is too clear even for argument that such a case as this cannot be disposed of on motion for summary judgment under Rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. The issues involve the validity and alleged infringement of two unadjudicated patents, and such questions can only be adequately determined after a trial.

The motion for summary judgment is denied.


Summaries of

Refractolite Corp. v. Prismo Holding Corp.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Dec 20, 1938
25 F. Supp. 965 (S.D.N.Y. 1938)
Case details for

Refractolite Corp. v. Prismo Holding Corp.

Case Details

Full title:REFRACTOLITE CORPORATION v. PRISMO HOLDING CORPORATION et al

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Dec 20, 1938

Citations

25 F. Supp. 965 (S.D.N.Y. 1938)

Citing Cases

Weil v. N.J. Richman Co.

While it is true, in some cases, where it definitely appears that there is no infringement, the Courts have…

Van Wormer v. Champion Paper Fibre Co.

" In support of his contentions counsel for plaintiff cites the following two cases: Refractolite Corporation…