Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

Widget HTML #1

[Download] "Brisk Waterproofing Co. v. Belanger" by United States Court of Appeals First Circuit * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

Brisk Waterproofing Co. v. Belanger

📘 Read Now     📥 Download


eBook details

  • Title: Brisk Waterproofing Co. v. Belanger
  • Author : United States Court of Appeals First Circuit
  • Release Date : January 04, 1954
  • Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
  • Pages : * pages
  • Size : 62 KB

Description

The plaintiff-appellee brought suit in the court below under Title 28 U.S.C. §Â§ 2201 and 2202 for a judgment declaring that the method of waterproofing brick walls described in its advertising circular, a copy of which it attached to its complaint as Exhibit A, did not conflict with any rights the defendant-appellant might have as the exclusive licensee under Larsons Patent No. 2,088,754 for the waterproofing of masonry walls, and also for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff in the prosecution of its business. The defendant answered denying the basic allegations of the complaint and, among other affirmative defenses not presently pertinent, alleged that the plaintiff came into court with "unclean hands" because it had made false and misleading statements in its advertising circular referred to above. At this point in the proceedings the plaintiff moved for a summary judgment under Rule 56(a), F.R.C.P., 28 U.S.C., on the ground that there was presented no genuine issue as to any material fact. It said, first, that a cause of action for a declaratory judgment was clearly established by a letter which it produced from counsel for the defendant threatening suit for infringement of the Larson patent if the plaintiff should obtain and perform a contract for the construction of a wall according to the system outlined in its advertising circular; second, that there was no basis in fact for the defendants allegation that the plaintiff had "unclean hands" for its circular was "obviously a sales flyer and must be judged accordingly"; and third, that the system described in the circular was in the public domain for it was the system covered by an expired patent to Larson (No. 1,970,326) as clearly appeared from a simple comparison of the circular with the expired patent. The District Court granted the motion on the pleadings, and the affidavits and depositions filed by the parties in support and in opposition thereto, and entered the judgment for the plaintiff giving it the relief it sought from which the defendant has taken this appeal. 116 F.Supp. 127.


Download Free Books "Brisk Waterproofing Co. v. Belanger" PDF ePub Kindle