American Sulphite Pulp Co. v. Hinckley Fibre Co.

N.D. New York

American Sulphite Pulp Co. v. Hinckley Fibre Co.

235 F. 173, 1916 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1355

DecidedSeptember 4, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 235 F. 173 (American Sulphite Pulp Co. v. Hinckley Fibre Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Sulphite Pulp Co. v. Hinckley Fibre Co., 235 F. 173, 1916 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1355 (N.D.N.Y. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

RAY, District Judge.

The reissued letters patent in suit, to George F. Russell, No. 11,282, dated November 15, 1892, long since expired, and there can be no injunction.

In deciding this case (217 Fed. 57), attention was centered on the Panzl patent, and the question whether defendant was using that patented composition, or the Russell composition, and lost sight of the fact that defendant had used the Russell patented composition in certain cases and for certain lengths of time, and hence was an infringer.

The motion is granted, and the decree dismissing the bill vacated, but only one-half costs and disbursements are allowed, as both parties succeed in part.

In the decree for complainant, signed and filed herewith, I have found it necessary to state the facts as to infringing acts, and it is not necessary to repeat them here.

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