Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Tensitron, Inc. v. David Bromley, D/B/A Electromatic Equipment Company, 369 F.2d 699, 2d Cir. (1966)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    45 views1 page
    Tensitron sued David Bromley for patent infringement of its tension meter. The district court found Tensitron's tension meter was obvious and therefore not patentable under 35 U.S.C. 103. The circuit court affirmed the district court's finding that Tensitron's tension meter was obvious and not patentable. As such, the circuit court did not need to address the district court's additional finding that Bromley's device infringed certain claims of Tensitron's patent.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1966-11-03 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 369 F.2d 699 Docket: 30338_1

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Tensitron sued David Bromley for patent infringement of its tension meter. The district court found Tensitron's tension meter was obvious and therefore not patentable under 35 U.S.C. 103. The circuit court affirmed the district court's finding that Tensitron's tension meter was obvious and not patentable. As such, the circuit court did not need to address the district court's additional finding that Bromley's device infringed certain claims of Tensitron's patent.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    45 views1 page

    Tensitron, Inc. v. David Bromley, D/B/A Electromatic Equipment Company, 369 F.2d 699, 2d Cir. (1966)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Tensitron sued David Bromley for patent infringement of its tension meter. The district court found Tensitron's tension meter was obvious and therefore not patentable under 35 U.S.C. 103. The circuit court affirmed the district court's finding that Tensitron's tension meter was obvious and not patentable. As such, the circuit court did not need to address the district court's additional finding that Bromley's device infringed certain claims of Tensitron's patent.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 1

    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:

    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.

    You might also like