Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Coastal Dynamics Corporation, and v. Symbolic Displays, Inc., and Gerald A. Curl, And

Coastal Dynamics Corp., & v. Symbolic Displays, Inc., & Gerald A. Curl, &, 469 F.2d 79 (9th Cir. 1972)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-08-04
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: 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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Coastal Dynamics Corporation, and v. Symbolic Displays, Inc., and Gerald A. Curl, And. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
9 opinions
COASTAL DYNAMICS CORP. v. SYMBOLIC DISPLAYS,469 F.2d 79(9th Cir. 1972)
COASTAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. SYMBOLIC DISPLAYS,
INC., AND GERALD A. CURL, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.
No. 26703.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
August 4, 1972.
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.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before CHAMBERS and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges, and COPPLE, District Judge.fn*
PER CURIAM:
[1] The summary judgment of the district court that Coastal Dynamics design patent 208,474 on a miniature electric lamp is invalid is affirmed.

[2] 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.

[3] It is asserted by Coastal Dynamics that the trial court failed to find either way on its issue of "assignor estoppel."

[4] 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.
  1. Honorable William P. Copple, United States District Judge, Phoenix, Arizona, sitting by designation. ↩