Stallman

Stallman v. Casey Bearing Co.

Good Law
144 F. Supp. 927·110 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 396·1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2877
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 31, 1956No. 33567California1,905 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Goodman, J.

This patent infringement suit was tried before a jury. Upon the conclusion of the evidence, defendant moved for a directed verdict in its favor on the ground that the claims in suit were invalid as a matter of law. Believing that the question tendered by the motion warranted a careful study which could more conveniently be made, if necessary, upon a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the Court denied the motion for a directed verdict and submitted the cause to the jury. The jury returned a verdict that the four claims in suit were valid and infringed. Defendant thereupon moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. An appraisal of the entire record in the light of the oral and written arguments upon the motion, compels the conclusion that the claims in suit are invalid as a matter of law and that the verdict must be set aside and judgment entered for defendant.

The patent in suit, No. 2,334,227, is a combination patent for a roller bearing. 1 Plaintiff’s bearing has the basic components common to all roller bearings— two concentric cylindrical races and a number of rollers resting in and substantially filling the space between the races. The significant feature…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.