Bonsack Mach. Co. v. National Cigarette Co.

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

Bonsack Mach. Co. v. National Cigarette Co.

64 F. 858, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 3092

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

DecidedOctober 2, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 64 F. 858 (Bonsack Mach. Co. v. National Cigarette 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

Bonsack Mach. Co. v. National Cigarette Co., 64 F. 858, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 3092 (circtsdny 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

This is a motion to punish for contempt. When the suit was originally brought, defendants were using a machine which the court has, after argument, held to be an infringement of complainants’ patents. The defendants are now using a machine which in some respects differs from the infringing machine already passed upon, and it appears that it is made under a patent issued subsequent to the decree. The weight of authority is clearly against the proposition that in such a case the question of infringement is to be settled on a motion to punish for contempt. The new machine is brought into court with prima facie proof that, in the opinion of the patent office, it is .patentably different from the machine of complainants. Whether it. is an infringement or not should be settled by application for injunction, not for commitment for contempt. Buerk v. Imhaeuser, 2 Ban. & A. 465, Fed. Cas. No. 2,107; Onderdonk v. Fanning, 2 Fed. 568; Wirt v. Brown, 30 Fed. 187; Truax v. Detweilar, 46 Fed. 117. Motion denied.

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

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

This is a motion to punish for contempt. When the suit was originally brought, defendants were using a machine which the court has, after argument, held to be an infringement of complainants’ patents. The defendants are now using a machine which in some respects differs from the infringing machine already passed upon, and it appears that it is made under a patent issued subsequent to the decree. The weight of authority is clearly against the proposition that in such a case the question of infringement is to be settled on a motion to punish for contempt. The new machine is brought into court with prima facie proof that, in the opinion of the patent office, it is .patentably different from the machine of complainants. Whether it. is an infringement or not should be settled by application for injunction, not for commitment for contempt. Buerk v. Imhaeuser, 2 Ban. & A. 465, Fed. Cas. No. 2,107; Onderdonk v. Fanning, 2 Fed. 568; Wirt v. Brown, 30 Fed. 187; Truax v. Detweilar, 46 Fed. 117. Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 F. 858, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 3092, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonsack-mach-co-v-national-cigarette-co-circtsdny-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack