U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 1967

Koehring Company v. National Automatic Tool Company, Inc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Decided October 4, 1967 · Schnackenberg, Enoch, Cummings

385 F.2d 414; 155 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 231 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Richard Russell Wolfe, Jarrett Ross Clark, Chicago, 111., William A. Denny, Milwaukee, Wis., for appellant., D. D. Allegretti, George P. McAndrews, Chicago, 111., Bair, Freeman & Molinare, Chicago, 111., of counsel, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision. The 14 that cite it most often are listed here.

Shideler v. Dwyer (Ind. 1981)
Carpet Seaming Tape Licensing Corp. v. Best Seam Inc. (9th Cir. 1980)
WILKINS v. GENZYME CORPORATION (District Court, D. Massachusetts 2022)
Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Bryan (District Court, E.D. New York 1992)
B & B Paint Corp. v. Shrock Manufacturing, Inc. (Ind. Ct. App. 1991)
Davis v. Geo. S. Olive & Co. (District Court, S.D. Indiana 1990)
Bell v. Metropolitan School Dist. of Shakamak (District Court, S.D. Indiana 1983)
Louis Marx & Co., Inc. v. Buddy L Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 1978)
Cole v. University of Hartford (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1975)
M & T Chemicals, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 1975)
Frequency Electronics, Inc. v. NAT. RADIO CO., INC. (District Court, S.D. New York 1975)
Johnson v. United States (Court of Claims 1975)
Telex Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp. (United States District Court, Oklahoma Northern 1973)
Struthers Scientific & International Corporation v. Rappl & Hoenig Co., Inc. (2d Cir. 1972)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

385 F.2d 414

KOEHRING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NATIONAL AUTOMATIC TOOL COMPANY, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15913.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

October 4, 1967.

Richard Russell Wolfe, Jarrett Ross Clark, Chicago, Ill., William A. Denny, Milwaukee, Wis., for appellant.

D. D. Allegretti, George P. McAndrews, Chicago, Ill., Bair, Freeman & Molinare, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for appellee.

Before SCHNACKENBERG, KNOCH and CUMMINGS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff sued to recover damages for infringement of its Patent No. 2,821,750 and for assignment of defendant's Patent Nos. 2,804,752 and 2,896,257 (and the corresponding British and Canadian patents). It also charged certain acts of unfair competition. In a thorough opinion, the District Court upheld the validity of the fifth claim of Patent No. 2,821,750 and concluded that plaintiff was entitled to damages for infringement. The Court refused to order an assignment of Patent No. 2,804,752, on the ground that this invention was conceived by employees of defendant after they had left plaintiff's employ. The same ruling was made with respect to Patent No. 2,896,257, on the ground that the patent was invalid. Finally, the Court held that plaintiff was entitled to recover an amount equal to the time saved by defendant in designing machines through use of certain of plaintiff's drawings and written information. See 257 F.Supp. 282. We do not find it necessary to consider the defense of laches discussed in the opinion nor, of course, do we consider matters not appealed. We adopt the remainder of the opinion.

The judgment is affirmed.

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge (concurring).

While the foregoing opinion is a model of conciseness, I believe that in its essential provisions it is sound. In any event, ready reference to the opinion of the district court is available, as indicated above.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.