Panaview Door & Window Co. v. Van Ness
Opinion
lead Opinion
Jertberg, J.
The motions of the defendants to dismiss the action, for summary judgment, to strike certain portions of the complaint and for more definite statement and the motion of plaintiff to amend the complaint, came on for hearing on July 18, 1955. The plaintiff was represented by Thomas P. Mahoney, and the defendants were represented by David Mellinkoff and by Charles G. Lyon.
It was stipulated by the defendants at the hearing that the motion of the plaintiff to amend the complaint be granted, whereupon the Court granted such motion. The amendment to the complaint simply struck from lines 18 to 20, page 2, paragraph 7, of the complaint, the following words: “and, since that date, Abraham Grossman has been and still is the owner of these Letters Patent”, and placing a period in line 18 after the word “closure”.
The several motions of the defendant are joined in a single notice but will be considered and treated separately.
The first motion is to dismiss Count I of the complaint for want of capacity of the plaintiff to sue for patent infringement in its own name, and for failure to join a necessary and indispensable party plaintiff.