Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Tensitron, Inc. v. David Bromley, D/B/A Electromatic Equipment Company, 30338_1 (1966)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Number: 30338_1 Visitors: 11
Filed: Nov. 03, 1966
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 369 F.2d 699 151 U.S.P.Q. 519 TENSITRON, INC., Appellant, v. David BROMLEY, d/b/a Electromatic Equipment Company, Appellee. No. 100, Docket 30338. United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit. Argued Oct. 26, 1966. Decided Nov. 3, 1966. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York; John F. Dooling, Jr., Judge. Robert E. Burns, New York City (Burns, Lobato & Zelnick, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Lawrence F. Scinto, New York City (Ward, Haselton,
More

369 F.2d 699

151 U.S.P.Q. 519

TENSITRON, INC., Appellant,
v.
David BROMLEY, d/b/a Electromatic Equipment Company, Appellee.

No. 100, Docket 30338.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Oct. 26, 1966.
Decided Nov. 3, 1966.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York; John F. Dooling, Jr., Judge.

Robert E. Burns, New York City (Burns, Lobato & Zelnick, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Lawrence F. Scinto, New York City (Ward, Haselton, McElhannon, Orme, Brooks & Fitzpatrick, New York City), for appellee.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and MOORE and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

We affirm Judge Dooling's finding that Tensitorn's tension meter was 'obvious' within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 and therefore not patentable. His well reasoned opinion is reported at 260 F. Supp. 457 (1966). It is unnecessary, therefore, for us to pass upon his finding that Bromley's device infringed claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 of Tensitron's patent.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer