Coastal Dynamics Corporation v. Symbolic Displays, Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 August 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 26703.,26703. |
| Citation | 469 F.2d 79 |
| Parties | COASTAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SYMBOLIC DISPLAYS, INC., and Gerald A. Curl, Defendants and Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
John E. Kelly (argued), Ralph B. Pastoriza, of Pastoriza & Kelly, Santa Monica, Cal., for plaintiff and appellant.
Grover A. Frater (argued), Harvey C. Nienow, of Nienow & Frater, Santa Ana, Cal., for defendants and appellees.
Before CHAMBERS and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges, and COPPLE, District Judge.*
The summary judgment of the district court that Coastal Dynamics design patent 208,474 on a miniature electric lamp is invalid is affirmed.
As a general rule, summary judgments in patent cases do not fare well, except experience does show they are sometimes appropriate in design patents which usually do not involve complicated factual situations. We find this case to be one where it was justified.
It is asserted by Coastal Dynamics that the trial court failed to find either way on its issue of "assignor estoppel."
We are satisfied that by inference he did rule that the point was without merit and such a result is required by the dicta in Lear, Incorporated v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653, 89 S.Ct. 1905, 23 L. Ed.2d 610, wherein licensee estoppel is considered. We are not persuaded that assignor estoppel requires any different rule. So no purpose could be served by a remand for an express ruling on assignor estoppel on the facts of this case.
* Honorable William P. Copple, United States District Judge, Phoenix, Arizona, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.
...concluded that assignor estoppel was not just unsettled but, like licensee estoppel, dead. See, e.g. , Coastal Dynamics Corp. v. Symbolic Displays, Inc. , 469 F.2d 79 (CA9 1972).Tellingly, respondents could not come up with even one case applying assignor estoppel in the nearly 20-year peri......
-
Diamond Scientific Co. v. Ambico, Inc.
...indicated their belief that assignor estoppel is no longer the prevailing rule of law. See Coastal Dynamics Corp. v. Symbolic Displays, Inc., 469 F.2d 79, 175 USPQ 81 (9th Cir.1972) (per curiam); Contour Chair Lounge Co. v. True-Fit Chair, Inc., 648 F.Supp. 704, 1 USPQ2d 1353 (E.D.Mo.1986);......
-
Roche Molecular Sys., Inc. v. Cepheid
...a nullity. See Diamond Scientific Co. v. Ambico, Inc., 848 F.2d 1220, 1223-25 (Fed. Cir. 1988); but see Coastal Dynamics Corp. v. Symbolic Displays, Inc., 469 F.2d 79, 79 (9th Cir. 1972)(refusing to remand for a express ruling on assignor estoppel because unconvinced that assignor estoppel ......
- United States v. Valle-Rojas
-
Chapter §19.05 Invalidity
...their belief that assignor estoppel is no longer the prevailing rule of law. See Coastal Dynamics Corp. v. Symbolic Displays, Inc., 469 F.2d 79, 175 USPQ 81 (9th Cir.1972) (per curiam); Contour Chair Lounge Co. v. True-Fit Chair, Inc., 648 F.Supp. 704, 1 USPQ2d 1353 (E.D.Mo.1986); Interconn......