Lambert Snyder Vibrator Co. v. Marvel Vibrator Co.

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

Lambert Snyder Vibrator Co. v. Marvel Vibrator Co.

138 F. 82, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4588

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

DecidedApril 29, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 138 F. 82 (Lambert Snyder Vibrator Co. v. Marvel Vibrator 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

Lambert Snyder Vibrator Co. v. Marvel Vibrator Co., 138 F. 82, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4588 (circtsdny 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The patent is of very recent date, and has not heretofore been adjudicated. That circumstance, however, is not sufficient ground for refusing preliminary 'injunction, unless there is some substantial question as to validity. Fuller v. Gilmore (C. C.) 121 Fed. 129. The evidence fails to disclose any anticipating paterit, or anything in the prior art which would at all qualify the language of the first claim. The patents for toys which Have been put in proof are devised to secure vibrations in a flexible movable arm, not in the rigid rod on which such arm moves. The Wolverton patent is not in the prior art. The defendant, who [83]*83uses the patented device, advertises and commends it, certainly cannot question its utility; and, even if he could, the evidence is unpersuasive to a conclusion that it does not subserve some useful purpose. Some of the devices complained of have points of difference from the device of the patent. Possibly the changes are improvements, but the combination of the first claim is 'found in all of them. It is not necessary to discuss the other claims.

Complainant may take injunction under the first claim.

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

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The patent is of very recent date, and has not heretofore been adjudicated. That circumstance, however, is not sufficient ground for refusing preliminary 'injunction, unless there is some substantial question as to validity. Fuller v. Gilmore (C. C.) 121 Fed. 129. The evidence fails to disclose any anticipating paterit, or anything in the prior art which would at all qualify the language of the first claim. The patents for toys which Have been put in proof are devised to secure vibrations in a flexible movable arm, not in the rigid rod on which such arm moves. The Wolverton patent is not in the prior art. The defendant, who [83]*83uses the patented device, advertises and commends it, certainly cannot question its utility; and, even if he could, the evidence is unpersuasive to a conclusion that it does not subserve some useful purpose. Some of the devices complained of have points of difference from the device of the patent. Possibly the changes are improvements, but the combination of the first claim is 'found in all of them. It is not necessary to discuss the other claims.

Complainant may take injunction under the first claim.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 F. 82, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lambert-snyder-vibrator-co-v-marvel-vibrator-co-circtsdny-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack