Glatt v. G.C. Murphy Company

2 Citing cases

  1. Deering, Milliken Co. v. Temp-Resisto Corp.

    274 F.2d 626 (2d Cir. 1960)   Cited 11 times

    Reflective ironing board covers have been enthusiastically received by the public and their manufacture now appears to be on widely competitive basis. See Glatt v. G.C. Murphy Company, D.C.D.Md., 1958, 168 F. Supp. 50, affirmed 4 Cir., 1959, 270 F.2d 137. The activities of Mr. Glatt are also noteworthy in establishing rather conclusively that the Rand invention would have been obvious to those possessing ordinary skill in the art. From Judge Watkin's findings it appears that Glatt in 1949 had thought of using his ironing board fabric as a garment liner (among other uses) by reducing the amount of aluminum flakes applied to the cloth. From this summary of the prior art it is plain that the theory underlying the Rand patent had been abroad for a number of years.

  2. Buildex v. Kason Industries

    665 F. Supp. 1021 (E.D.N.Y. 1987)   Cited 3 times

    Under 35 U.S.C. ยง 256, failure to name a joint inventor in a patent, provided there is no deceptive intention, may be corrected without invalidating the patent. See Glatt v. G.C. Murphy Co., 168 F. Supp. 50, 68 (D.Md. 1958), aff'd, 270 F.2d 137 (4th Cir. 1959). Initially, however, Kason has the burden of showing non-joinder of an inventor by clear and convincing evidence.