Columbia Machine & Stopper Corp. v. Adriance Machine & Stopper Corp.

Second Circuit

Columbia Machine & Stopper Corp. v. Adriance Machine & Stopper Corp.

226 F. 455, 141 C.C.A. 198, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2221

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 25, 1915

DocketNos. 305, 306

StatusPublished

This text of 226 F. 455 (Columbia Machine & Stopper Corp. v. Adriance Machine & Stopper Corp.) 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

Columbia Machine & Stopper Corp. v. Adriance Machine & Stopper Corp., 226 F. 455, 141 C.C.A. 198, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2221 (2d Cir. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We concur fully with Judge Veeder’s finding that the patented machine ‘‘embodies a highly useful and simple combination of elements whereby a sealing head is positively raised and lowered to perform the operation of capping bottles smoothly, swiftly, and with certainty of operation.” The combination is a novel one, a meritorious improvement of prior machines, and is entitled to' a fair range of equivalents. The question of infringement is more perplexing, because of a different cycle of movement of the principle cooperating parts; but we are inclined to concur with the reasoning by which Judge Veeder reached the conclusion that the variances are unimportant and that the language of the claim covers defendant’s device.

The decrees are affirmed with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

We concur fully with Judge Veeder’s finding that the patented machine ‘‘embodies a highly useful and simple combination of elements whereby a sealing head is positively raised and lowered to perform the operation of capping bottles smoothly, swiftly, and with certainty of operation.” The combination is a novel one, a meritorious improvement of prior machines, and is entitled to' a fair range of equivalents. The question of infringement is more perplexing, because of a different cycle of movement of the principle cooperating parts; but we are inclined to concur with the reasoning by which Judge Veeder reached the conclusion that the variances are unimportant and that the language of the claim covers defendant’s device.

The decrees are affirmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 F. 455, 141 C.C.A. 198, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/columbia-machine-stopper-corp-v-adriance-machine-stopper-corp-ca2-1915.