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

Second Circuit

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

120 F. 672, 57 C.C.A. 183, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4523

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided January 8, 1903·No. No. 111·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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.

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).

Pincite

120 F. 672 (Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Buffalo Electric Carriage Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related