Michael H. Juliano, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Hobart Manufacturing Company, Defendant, Appellee, 303 F.2d 830 (1st Cir. 1962)
Annotate this CaseDecided June 15, 1962
Harold E. Cole, Boston, Mass., for appellant.
Lawrence B. Biebel, Dayton, Ohio, with whom Dailey L. Bugg, Dayton, Ohio, Robert L. Meade, Boston, Mass., Marechal, Biebel, French & Bugg, Dayton, Ohio, and Hale & Dorr, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for appellee.
Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff, having made and sold to the public an attachment for defendant's machine, sold one to defendant, to which he now seeks to attach a confidential relationship. After the sale to defendant the plaintiff obtained a design patent on his device. Defendant presently manufactures an attachment which admittedly is so different that there is no infringement of plaintiff's design patent. The district court ordered summary judgment for the defendant. There was no error.
Judgment will be entered affirming the judgment of the District Court.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
