Refractolite Corp. v. Prismo Holding Corp.

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

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

Date published: 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.

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.