Mabs, Inc., d/b/a Lancer of California, Snap-Tab Corporation, and Leslie Riverview Realty Corp. v. Piedmont Shirt Company
United States District Court for the District of South Carolina
248 F. Supp. 71 (1965)
- Written by Jody Stuart, JD
Facts
Mabs, Inc., d/b/a Lancer of California, Snap-Tab Corporation, and Leslie Riverview Realty Corp. (collectively, the Snap-Tab associates) (plaintiffs) sued Piedmont Shirt Company (Piedmont) (defendant) for infringement of their constructed-collar patent. Each of the elements of the constructed-collar patent was already well-known in the shirt-making industry. That is, each of the elements was in the prior art. These elements included inelastic tabs, snap fasteners, and top stitching on shirt collars. The Snap-Tab associates asserted that the combination of these elements created novel functions, including keeping the snap ends of the tabs entirely separate from the front of the shirt when the collar was worn, which minimized stress on the tabs; using top stitching to help attach the inelastic tabs to the collar wings, which distributed stresses to the collar layers next to the collar-wing edges; and using snap fasteners to attach the tabs to each other instead of the shirt neckband. The Snap-Tab associates’ constructed collar was licensed to as many as 55 licensees and generated approximately $250,000 in royalties on over 15 million collars.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Simons, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.