Ball & Socket Fastener Co. v. Patent Button Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut

Ball & Socket Fastener Co. v. Patent Button Co.

136 F. 272, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 5155

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut

DecidedMarch 16, 1905

DocketNo. 1,169

StatusPublished

This text of 136 F. 272 (Ball & Socket Fastener Co. v. Patent Button Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ball & Socket Fastener Co. v. Patent Button Co., 136 F. 272, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 5155 (circtdct 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

PLATT, District Judge.

The question for final determination will be whether two patents to White, Nos. 691,222 and 692,953, shall be assigned to complainant by virtue of the contract of January 22, 1887. That matter may well await its day in court. We are now concerned with one single question, i. e., whether the defendant shall retain the unclouded title to those patents until the main contention shall be settled. If there is a reasonable likelihood that the complainant may win on the merits at the end, it is quite proper that, in the circumstances as they exist, the status quo should be preserved. Not being satisfied by the affidavits that such course may not be at last adopted, the order asked for and argued at the hearing may be entered.

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

PLATT, District Judge.

The question for final determination will be whether two patents to White, Nos. 691,222 and 692,953, shall be assigned to complainant by virtue of the contract of January 22, 1887. That matter may well await its day in court. We are now concerned with one single question, i. e., whether the defendant shall retain the unclouded title to those patents until the main contention shall be settled. If there is a reasonable likelihood that the complainant may win on the merits at the end, it is quite proper that, in the circumstances as they exist, the status quo should be preserved. Not being satisfied by the affidavits that such course may not be at last adopted, the order asked for and argued at the hearing may be entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 F. 272, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 5155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ball-socket-fastener-co-v-patent-button-co-circtdct-1905.