Lane Bros. Co. v. Wilcox Mfg. Co.

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

Lane Bros. Co. v. Wilcox Mfg. Co.

141 F. 1000, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4931

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1905

DocketNo. 8,665

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 141 F. 1000 (Lane Bros. Co. v. Wilcox Mfg. 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

Lane Bros. Co. v. Wilcox Mfg. Co., 141 F. 1000, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4931 (circtsdny 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

HOLT, District Judge.

I think that the complainant’s patents for door hangers, No. 426,390, and for a wheel for door hangers, No. 422,-305, are invalid for lack of patentable invention. The patent for door hangers was, in my opinion, anticipated by the patents to Doan, Prindle, Stevens, and Richards, and the patent for a wheel by the patents to Ewing, Ward, Martindale, McAleenan, and Righter. The design patent, in my opinion, is invalid, because the design attempted to be patented has no peculiar configuration or ornamentation which enhances its saleable value. It is nothing but an attempt to obtain a design patent for the shape of a mechanical structure.

My conclusion is that the bill should be dismissed, with costs.

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

HOLT, District Judge.

I think that the complainant’s patents for door hangers, No. 426,390, and for a wheel for door hangers, No. 422,-305, are invalid for lack of patentable invention. The patent for door hangers was, in my opinion, anticipated by the patents to Doan, Prindle, Stevens, and Richards, and the patent for a wheel by the patents to Ewing, Ward, Martindale, McAleenan, and Righter. The design patent, in my opinion, is invalid, because the design attempted to be patented has no peculiar configuration or ornamentation which enhances its saleable value. It is nothing but an attempt to obtain a design patent for the shape of a mechanical structure.

My conclusion is that the bill should be dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 F. 1000, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lane-bros-co-v-wilcox-mfg-co-circtsdny-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack