Lalance & Grosjean Manuf'g Co. v. Mosheim

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

Lalance & Grosjean Manuf'g Co. v. Mosheim

53 F. 380, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 2034

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided December 22, 1892·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

COXE, District Judge.

The decision in the preceding cause (53 Fed. Rep. 375) disposes of this cause also. It is conceded that the defendant sold tbe articles in proof made by tbe Habermann Company. Tbe second claim is intended to cover the product of tbe process described in tbe first claim, and, thus limited, I think it is valid and that tbe defendant has infringed.

Tbe complainant is entitled to tbe usual decree upon tbe second claim

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

COXE, District Judge.

The decision in the preceding cause (53 Fed. Rep. 375) disposes of this cause also. It is conceded that the defendant sold tbe articles in proof made by tbe Habermann Company. Tbe second claim is intended to cover the product of tbe process described in tbe first claim, and, thus limited, I think it is valid and that tbe defendant has infringed.

Tbe complainant is entitled to tbe usual decree upon tbe second claim

Lalance & Grosjean Manuf'g Co. v. Mosheim, 53 F. 380, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 2034 (circtsdny 1892).

Pincite

53 F. 380 (Lalance & Grosjean Manuf'g Co. v. Mosheim) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related