Affiliations

• Langsett v. Marmet Corporation

  District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1964-06-05 · cited 2×

  This was a patent infringement lawsuit brought by the trustee and exclusive licensee of U.S. Patent No. 2,654,920, which covers an insulated metal window closure designed to reduce through-metal heat conductivity and condensation, against Marmet Corporation, a manufacturer of similar window frames. The defendant denied infringement and challenged the patent's validity on grounds of anticipation by prior art, obviousness, and being on sale more than one year before the application date. After reviewing the record, the court held the patent invalid in its entirety because it was anticipated by prior art (including Pierson, Coulson, and Marsh references not considered by the examiner), was obvious to a person skilled in the art, and had been commercially sold too early; alternatively, even if valid, the Marmet product did not infringe because it used different means and followed the prior art rather than the claimed inventive features. The court entered judgment for the defendant on the merits and declined to award attorney fees.

  business & regulatory

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (7,712 words)

• In Re Terrace Superette, Inc.

  District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1964-05-19 · cited 12×

  This case involved competing claims to merchandise seized by a county sheriff under a writ of execution obtained by judgment creditors before the debtor corporation filed for bankruptcy. The referee in bankruptcy issued three ex parte restraining orders enjoining the sheriff's sale and directing turnover of the goods, as well as barring a state judge from proceeding on related matters. The district court held that the referee's orders failed to comply with the notice, factual showing, duration, and hearing requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), which applies in bankruptcy proceedings under General Order 37. The court vacated the referee's orders but temporarily reinstated equivalent restraints and remanded the case for noticed hearings to resolve the bankrupt's corporate status, the bankruptcy court's summary jurisdiction over the property (turning on possession at filing), the validity of a chattel mortgage, and related issues.

  procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (2,595 words)

• Sun-X Glass Tinting of Mid-Wisconsin, Inc. v. Sun-X International, Inc.

  District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1964-03-16 · cited 17×

  This case involved a diversity action brought by eight dealer-distributors against Sun-X International, Inc. (formerly AGT), alleging issues arising from distributor contracts, with the defendant moving to quash service and dismiss on grounds that it was not doing business in Wisconsin and that joinder of plaintiffs was improper. The court held that service was valid for the four Wisconsin plaintiffs due to AGT's sufficient contacts through advertising, sales visits, training, and product shipments totaling over $70,000, but invalid for the four non-resident plaintiffs. It further ruled that the claims lacked a common transaction or occurrence, requiring severance of the actions, and ordered amendments to the complaint to specify capacity to sue and the details of alleged misrepresentations with particularity under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

  procedurebusiness & regulatory

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (5,568 words)