Chadeloid Chemical Co. v. Daxe Varnish Co.

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

Chadeloid Chemical Co. v. Daxe Varnish Co.

180 F. 1004, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5549

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

DecidedAugust 2, 1910

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 180 F. 1004 (Chadeloid Chemical Co. v. Daxe Varnish Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chadeloid Chemical Co. v. Daxe Varnish Co., 180 F. 1004, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5549 (circtedny 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

CHATFIEED, District Judge.

I see no reason why an injunction should not issue. The Ellis patent has been frequently adjudicated valid in terms broad enough to cover the defendants’ composition and process. Infringement seems to be clear, and the only defenses are prior use (which is not satisfactorily shown) and a slightly different composition procured by the use of petroleum jelly and kerosene. [1005]*1005These latter ingredients are within the general terms of the Ellis claims as previously held valid, and also within the specified materials of the Ellis patent. The D’axe patent, No. 91-8,814, of Eebruary 8, 1910, seems to have been granted for the particular formula'used with; petroleum jelly and kerosene in exact quantities or proportions. The' kerosene is claimed to be an additional or new element over the Ellis formula, but is in such slight proportion and so plainly indicated in the composition of the Ellis patent as to make no new product, but merely an equivalent variation of the complainant’s preparation.

The injunction pendente lite may be issued.

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

CHATFIEED, District Judge.

I see no reason why an injunction should not issue. The Ellis patent has been frequently adjudicated valid in terms broad enough to cover the defendants’ composition and process. Infringement seems to be clear, and the only defenses are prior use (which is not satisfactorily shown) and a slightly different composition procured by the use of petroleum jelly and kerosene. [1005]*1005These latter ingredients are within the general terms of the Ellis claims as previously held valid, and also within the specified materials of the Ellis patent. The D’axe patent, No. 91-8,814, of Eebruary 8, 1910, seems to have been granted for the particular formula'used with; petroleum jelly and kerosene in exact quantities or proportions. The' kerosene is claimed to be an additional or new element over the Ellis formula, but is in such slight proportion and so plainly indicated in the composition of the Ellis patent as to make no new product, but merely an equivalent variation of the complainant’s preparation.

The injunction pendente lite may be issued.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 F. 1004, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chadeloid-chemical-co-v-daxe-varnish-co-circtedny-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack