American Diamond Rock Boring Co. v. Rutland Marble Co.

2 F. 355, 18 Blatchf. 147, 1880 U.S. App. LEXIS 2453
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Vermont
DecidedMarch 8, 1880
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 F. 355 (American Diamond Rock Boring Co. v. Rutland Marble Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Diamond Rock Boring Co. v. Rutland Marble Co., 2 F. 355, 18 Blatchf. 147, 1880 U.S. App. LEXIS 2453 (circtdvt 1880).

Opinion

Wheeler, D. J.

This cause has been heard upon a motion for a preliminary injunction against infringement of a patent, the term of which has expired. The bill alleges that the defendants have, since the date of the patent, and since the title to it became vested in the orator, infringed by using machines embodying the patented invention, and that the orator fears the defendant will continue to use such machines; [356]*356but does not allege that the defendant is using machines made during the term of the patent in infringement upon it, nor that the orator fears such use. Without these allegations the case is not within the decision in Crossley v. Derby Gas-Light Co. 4 Law Jour. N. S. Pt. 1 Chan. 25, and shows no ground for relief by injunction. The other cases in favor of the orator, in which similar motions have been made, stand in the same way, and are to follow this.

Motion denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

American Sulphite Pulp Co. v. Crown-Columbia Pulp & Paper Co.
169 F. 140 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 F. 355, 18 Blatchf. 147, 1880 U.S. App. LEXIS 2453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-diamond-rock-boring-co-v-rutland-marble-co-circtdvt-1880.