Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Buffalo Electric Carriage Co.

120 F. 672, 57 C.C.A. 183, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4523
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedJanuary 8, 1903
DocketNo. 111
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 120 F. 672 (Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Buffalo Electric Carriage 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
Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Buffalo Electric Carriage Co., 120 F. 672, 57 C.C.A. 183, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4523 (2d Cir. 1903).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The points raised upon this appeal have been heretofore decided adversely to the appellant by this court in Accumulator Co. v. Brush Co., 2 C. C. A. 682, 52 Fed. 130, and Thomson-Houston Co. v. Elmira & Horseheads Co., 18 C. C. A. 145, 71 Fed. 406. It is true that when this generic patent was before this court the earlier specific patents had not expired, but the legal propositions involved are not changed by such expiration.

The order is affirmed, with costs, on the opinion of Judge Hazel ([C. C.] 117 Fed. 314), which clearly and succinctly states those propositions, and indicates the bearing thereon of- the cases above cited.

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

Related

Union Typewriter Co. v. L. C. Smith & Bros.
173 F. 288 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
120 F. 672, 57 C.C.A. 183, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/electric-storage-battery-co-v-buffalo-electric-carriage-co-ca2-1903.