I also found this small info on a lawsuit against Micro from King
Dan
King Gun Sight Company v. Micro Sight Company, 218 F.2d 825 (9th Cir., 1955)
218 F.2d 825
KING GUN SIGHT COMPANY, Inc., a corporation, Appellant,
v.
MICRO SIGHT COMPANY, Inc., a corporation, John V. McKenna, Rene Goudy, Eugene F. Padel, George K. Thannisch, and Marion Galloway, Appellees.
No. 13470.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
January 13, 1955.
Rehearing Denied March 1, 1955.
Townsend & Townsend, Charles Townsend, Jr., San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
White & Riaboff, George B. White, Alexander Riaboff, Dudley Harkelroad, San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.
Before HEALY and ORR, Circuit Judges, and WIIG, District Judge.
WIIG, District Judge.
King Gun Sight Company, Inc. (hereinafter "King"), on behalf of itself and its predecessors, sought damages and injunctive relief against Micro Sight Company, Inc. (hereinafter "Micro") and five persons who were or had been connected with Micro, alleging four causes of action: patent infringement; trade-mark infringement; unlawful palming off of firearm hammers under the trade-mark; and unfair competition, by virtue of Micro's and the individual defendants' acts in establishing and maintaining a competing business while still in King's employ, and thereafter continuing to solicit and sell to King's customers, using confidential trade information learned by them during such employment.
On the basis of findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court adjudged that King have judgment against Micro (the corporation) for the sum of $250 as nominal damages and injunctive relief under the third cause of action, that the patent was invalid and void as anticipated, that the trade-mark was invalid and void, that King take nothing under the fourth cause of action, and that each party bear its own costs.
Satisfaction of judgment was entered under the third cause of action. King appeals from the judgment as to the first, second and fourth causes of action and the order that each party bear its own costs.
Dean W. King, a predecessor of the King corporation, was the holder of Patent No. 2,159,527, for asymmetrical hammers for firearms, particularly pistol and revolver hammers. The King hammer consisted of a lug or spur welded on laterally to one or both sides of the thumb piece of the hammer, projecting outwardly as an integral extension of the checkered or knurled thumb piece, intended to facilitate the cocking action without the necessity for slipping the thumb over the hammer surface or "rolling" of the firearm, thereby enabling the marksman to maintain his sight on the target. On January 11, 1938, Dean W. King registered the name "Cockeyed" as the trade-mark denoting his pistol hammers, the certificate of registration being No. 353691.
The trial court found that the patent was invalid on the ground that it was anticipated by an earlier firearm hammer, the Diefendorf-O'Toole hammer, as well as by six prior patents,
if you want to read it all you need to subscribe here at this link
https://www.fastcase.com/Google/Start.aspx?C=f4219732d2...0c11d0d7e0fc0a33cc6c
Dan
