Arnold Monophase Electric Co. v. Wagner Electric Mfg. Co.

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

Arnold Monophase Electric Co. v. Wagner Electric Mfg. Co.

118 F. 653, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5209

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

DecidedAugust 11, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 118 F. 653 (Arnold Monophase Electric Co. v. Wagner Electric Mfg. Co.) 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

Arnold Monophase Electric Co. v. Wagner Electric Mfg. Co., 118 F. 653, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5209 (circtsdny 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The pleadings are not now before the court, but, from the statements which have been as to their contents, this application to examine witnesses as to the defendant’s knowledge of the assignment to the complainant seems to be premature. Validity of the patent and infringement are not disputed. All that complainant has to do is to prove assignment to it. Its prima facie case is then complete, whether or not such assignment was duly recorded in the patent office or not. It is for defendant to show that it was a purchaser for value, without notice, if it wishes to avoid the assignment to complainant on the ground that it was not duly recorded. Complainant has not changed the situation by inserting in the bill unnecessary averments to the effect that defendant had notice of the prior unrecorded assignment.

For this reason, the motion is denied.

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

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The pleadings are not now before the court, but, from the statements which have been as to their contents, this application to examine witnesses as to the defendant’s knowledge of the assignment to the complainant seems to be premature. Validity of the patent and infringement are not disputed. All that complainant has to do is to prove assignment to it. Its prima facie case is then complete, whether or not such assignment was duly recorded in the patent office or not. It is for defendant to show that it was a purchaser for value, without notice, if it wishes to avoid the assignment to complainant on the ground that it was not duly recorded. Complainant has not changed the situation by inserting in the bill unnecessary averments to the effect that defendant had notice of the prior unrecorded assignment.

For this reason, the motion is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 F. 653, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-monophase-electric-co-v-wagner-electric-mfg-co-circtsdny-1902.