George Frost Co. v. Crandall Wedge Co.

S.D. New York

George Frost Co. v. Crandall Wedge Co.

123 F. 104, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4882

DecidedApril 16, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 123 F. 104 (George Frost Co. v. Crandall Wedge Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

George Frost Co. v. Crandall Wedge Co., 123 F. 104, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4882 (S.D.N.Y. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

There are prior patents in this record, which were not before the courts in the earlier suit; but, comparing them with those which were then considered, this court does not feel warranted in assuming that their presence in the earlier suit would have induced a different construction of the patent. As to the general equities, a complainant who has the decision of an appellate court, sustaining a construction of the patent on final hearing, is ordinarily entitled to an injunction against a new infringer, although such infringer was ignorant of his claim. The defendant’s hose supporter, as such, does not infringe; and it is, thought that a modification of the button or stud which engages with the stocking will avoid infringement, and leave defendant free to make and sell its supporter. Preliminary injunction will issue under the first claim. Inasmuch, however, as complainant has deprived itself of.the power to license the use of its button or stud on defendant’s noncompeting hose supporter, [105]*105the operation of injunction will be stayed until the close of the May session of the Court of Appeals, so as to allow defendant to present its additional prior patents to that court.

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

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

There are prior patents in this record, which were not before the courts in the earlier suit; but, comparing them with those which were then considered, this court does not feel warranted in assuming that their presence in the earlier suit would have induced a different construction of the patent. As to the general equities, a complainant who has the decision of an appellate court, sustaining a construction of the patent on final hearing, is ordinarily entitled to an injunction against a new infringer, although such infringer was ignorant of his claim. The defendant’s hose supporter, as such, does not infringe; and it is, thought that a modification of the button or stud which engages with the stocking will avoid infringement, and leave defendant free to make and sell its supporter. Preliminary injunction will issue under the first claim. Inasmuch, however, as complainant has deprived itself of.the power to license the use of its button or stud on defendant’s noncompeting hose supporter, [105]*105the operation of injunction will be stayed until the close of the May session of the Court of Appeals, so as to allow defendant to present its additional prior patents to that court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 F. 104, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-frost-co-v-crandall-wedge-co-nysd-1903.