Capital Cash-Register Co. v. National Cash Register Co.

Second Circuit

Capital Cash-Register Co. v. National Cash Register Co.

70 F. 709, 17 C.C.A. 355, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2542

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 7, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 70 F. 709 (Capital Cash-Register Co. v. National Cash Register Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Capital Cash-Register Co. v. National Cash Register Co., 70 F. 709, 17 C.C.A. 355, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2542 (2d Cir. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal, which is from an order granting a preliminary injunction, involves the single question whether the defendant’s apparatus infringes the third claim of the patent in suit, sis Unit claim has been construed by the circuit court of appeals for the Third circuit. 3 C. C. A. 559, 53 Fed. 367. The contention for i he appelhmf is that its apparatus does not embody that of the patent, because it dispenses with the “mediate connection” between the drawer holder, D, of the patent, and the series of keys which is an element of claim 3. The drawer holder, D, is a lever, the rear end of which projects downward onto the drawer, and engages the rear end thereof; in other words, the thing which holds the drawer. The defendant’s machine connects such á drawer holder with the keys by the mediate connection of a frame carrying a horizontal crossbar which unites its ends. The mediate connection of the patent is any device by means of which the movement of the keys can be transmitted to the drawer holder. The frame with its horizontal crossbar of the defendant’s apparatus is such a device. It is quite immaterial that the drawer holder is made integral with the frame.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal, which is from an order granting a preliminary injunction, involves the single question whether the defendant’s apparatus infringes the third claim of the patent in suit, sis Unit claim has been construed by the circuit court of appeals for the Third circuit. 3 C. C. A. 559, 53 Fed. 367. The contention for i he appelhmf is that its apparatus does not embody that of the patent, because it dispenses with the “mediate connection” between the drawer holder, D, of the patent, and the series of keys which is an element of claim 3. The drawer holder, D, is a lever, the rear end of which projects downward onto the drawer, and engages the rear end thereof; in other words, the thing which holds the drawer. The defendant’s machine connects such á drawer holder with the keys by the mediate connection of a frame carrying a horizontal crossbar which unites its ends. The mediate connection of the patent is any device by means of which the movement of the keys can be transmitted to the drawer holder. The frame with its horizontal crossbar of the defendant’s apparatus is such a device. It is quite immaterial that the drawer holder is made integral with the frame.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 F. 709, 17 C.C.A. 355, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capital-cash-register-co-v-national-cash-register-co-ca2-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack