Krans v. Adolph Hollander Co.

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

Krans v. Adolph Hollander Co.

145 F. 956, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4809

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

DecidedMay 16, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 145 F. 956 (Krans v. Adolph Hollander Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Krans v. Adolph Hollander Co., 145 F. 956, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4809 (circtsdny 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

WHEELER, District Judge.

The plaintiff’s patent, No. 719,814, dated February 3, 1903, is for a neckwear supporter and fastener made of wire, “possessing resiliency and readily applied,” and in which “its bends or turns are so disposed as to shift the breaking points of the shield beyond those where the securing points pass through said shield.” The specification and drawings show offsets passing through the shield, and bent against its opposite side, to prevent its breaking-where the spurs pass through in the middle. In the first, second, third, and sixth claims alleged to be infringed the offsets of wire passed through and clenched against the other side of the shield and the essential feature. Among the many patents on such fasteners preceding the plaintiffs is No. 302,703, dated July 29, 1884, issued to Edward C. Morris, which shows such offsets stapled firmly to the shield, to “secure a springiness, of the fastener in all directions.” This would strengthen the fastener in the middle, as the plantiff’s offsets do, although that is not mentioned as an effect. The difference in this respect' is between stapling the offsets of wire through the shield, and passing them through and clenching them against it on the other side, [957]*957and it appears to be the work of a mechanic, rather than the exercise of the ingenuity or skill of an inventor. The room left by the other patents was very small, and this seems to have left hardly any, and not enough to sustain the plaintiff's patent.

Bill dismissed.

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

WHEELER, District Judge.

The plaintiff’s patent, No. 719,814, dated February 3, 1903, is for a neckwear supporter and fastener made of wire, “possessing resiliency and readily applied,” and in which “its bends or turns are so disposed as to shift the breaking points of the shield beyond those where the securing points pass through said shield.” The specification and drawings show offsets passing through the shield, and bent against its opposite side, to prevent its breaking-where the spurs pass through in the middle. In the first, second, third, and sixth claims alleged to be infringed the offsets of wire passed through and clenched against the other side of the shield and the essential feature. Among the many patents on such fasteners preceding the plaintiffs is No. 302,703, dated July 29, 1884, issued to Edward C. Morris, which shows such offsets stapled firmly to the shield, to “secure a springiness, of the fastener in all directions.” This would strengthen the fastener in the middle, as the plantiff’s offsets do, although that is not mentioned as an effect. The difference in this respect' is between stapling the offsets of wire through the shield, and passing them through and clenching them against it on the other side, [957]*957and it appears to be the work of a mechanic, rather than the exercise of the ingenuity or skill of an inventor. The room left by the other patents was very small, and this seems to have left hardly any, and not enough to sustain the plaintiff's patent.

Bill dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 F. 956, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krans-v-adolph-hollander-co-circtsdny-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack