Alb, Inc. v. Noma Lites, Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 March 1956 |
| Docket Number | Docket 23915.,No. 259,259 |
| Citation | 231 F.2d 662 |
| Parties | ALB, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NOMA LITES, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Frederic P. Warfield, New York City (Harry Krauss, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
Morris Kirschstein, New York City (David B. Kirschstein, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.
Before MEDINA, LUMBARD and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.
On April 25, 1951, plaintiff sued Noma Electric Corporation for alleged infringement of plaintiff's Display Device Patent No. 2,278,383. The case was tried and the complaint dismissed on the merits, 130 F.Supp. 918, and we affirmed on March 18, 1955. Alb, Inc., v. Noma Electric Corp., 2 Cir., 222 F.2d 367. On January 23, 1953, while the action just described was pending, Noma Lites, Inc., the defendant-appellee herein, was incorporated as a wholly owned subsidiary of Noma Electric Corporation. A few weeks later, parent and subsidiary were severed by a "spin-off," and Noma Lites, Inc., with full knowledge of the pendency of the prior action which had not yet come to trial, took over the old Decorative Lighting Division, lock, stock and barrel, and continued to operate the business of manufacturing and selling the alleged infringing device in precisely the same manner as had theretofore been done by the Decorative Lighting Division of Noma Electric Corporation.
After losing the first case, plaintiff brought a new one for the same relief, naming as defendants Noma Electric Corporation and Noma Electric Corporation and Noma Lites, Inc., but later an amended complaint was served dropping Noma Electric Corporation. Judge Walsh granted summary judgment on the ground of res judicata and plaintiff appeals.
In the prior suit, had the court found against Noma Electric Corporation the judgment would undoubtedly have been binding on Noma...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible Inc.
...279, 280, 129 USPQ 97, 98-99 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 828, 82 S.Ct. 49, 7 L.Ed.2d 32 (1961); Alb, Inc. v. Noma Lites, Inc., 231 F.2d 662, 663, 109 USPQ 26, 27 (2d Cir.1956). The applicable reasoning was well illustrated in J.R. Clark If a third party may thus come into the acquisi......
-
Netjets Large Aircraft, Inc. v. United States
...... not limited to, preceding and succeeding owners of property.”) (internal citations omitted); see also Alb, Inc. v. Noma Lites, Inc., 231 F.2d 662, 663 (2d Cir.1956) (per curiam) (holding collateral estoppel barred claim against company that was a spun off subsidiary of the earlier preva......
-
Gammon, Inc. v. Lemelson
...Steel Corp., 288 F.2d 279, 280 (7th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 828, 82 S.Ct. 49, 7 L.Ed.2d 32 (1961); Alb, Inc. v. Noma Lites, Inc., 231 F.2d 662, 663 (2d Cir. 1956). The rationale behind these decisions was expressed by the court in J. R. Clark Co. as follows: "If a third party may......
-
Baltz v. Botto
...56 L.Ed. 1009; Freeman on Judgments (5th Ed.) Section 439, page 964; Alb, Inc., v. Noma Lites, Inc., 107 U.S.P.Q. 120, affirmed 2 Cir., 1956, 231 F.2d 662. 25. So also a person who was to all intents and purposes in full privity with the original parties to a consent decree who had bought t......