History
  • No items yet
midpage
Refractolite Corporation v. Prismo Holding Corporation
1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1540
| S.D.N.Y. | 1938
|
Check Treatment
25 F.Supp. 965 (1938)

REFRACTOLITE CORPORATION
v.
PRISMO HOLDING CORPORATION et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

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.

COXE, District Judge.

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.

Case Details

Case Name: Refractolite Corporation v. Prismo Holding Corporation
Court Name: District Court, S.D. New York
Date Published: Dec 20, 1938
Citation: 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1540
Court Abbreviation: S.D.N.Y.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.