American Electric Novelty & Manufacturing Co. v. Stanley & Patterson

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

American Electric Novelty & Manufacturing Co. v. Stanley & Patterson

140 F. 444, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4803

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedAugust 16, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 140 F. 444 (American Electric Novelty & Manufacturing Co. v. Stanley & Patterson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Electric Novelty & Manufacturing Co. v. Stanley & Patterson, 140 F. 444, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4803 (circtsdny 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The device manufactured and sold’ by defendants seems to be within the analysis of the first claim of the Hoggson patent, as stated by the Circuit Court of Appeals in-the suits against the Howard Company and the Stein & LanglosCompany. The modifications in structure of the holder'do not appear to be material. Nevertheless, there is much force in the. argument that a fundamental and distinctive feature of the Hoggson patent is-the flexible spring clamps, specified in its fourth claim, with their useful function of scraping automatically, and thus keeping contact surfaces bright. Under these circumstances, it will be a fair disposition of the questions presented on this preliminary application to-grant injunction under the first claim, and thereafter to make an order suspending the same pending appeal; upon defendants giving security in the sum of $1,500 to respond, in the event of complainant’s-final success, for damages and profits during the period of suspension, with leave to complainant to move to terminate the suspension should defendant fail to appeal, and to move said appeal promptly for argument at the next term of the Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The device manufactured and sold’ by defendants seems to be within the analysis of the first claim of the Hoggson patent, as stated by the Circuit Court of Appeals in-the suits against the Howard Company and the Stein & LanglosCompany. The modifications in structure of the holder'do not appear to be material. Nevertheless, there is much force in the. argument that a fundamental and distinctive feature of the Hoggson patent is-the flexible spring clamps, specified in its fourth claim, with their useful function of scraping automatically, and thus keeping contact surfaces bright. Under these circumstances, it will be a fair disposition of the questions presented on this preliminary application to-grant injunction under the first claim, and thereafter to make an order suspending the same pending appeal; upon defendants giving security in the sum of $1,500 to respond, in the event of complainant’s-final success, for damages and profits during the period of suspension, with leave to complainant to move to terminate the suspension should defendant fail to appeal, and to move said appeal promptly for argument at the next term of the Circuit Court of Appeals.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 F. 444, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-electric-novelty-manufacturing-co-v-stanley-patterson-circtsdny-1905.