Lattimore Mfg. Co. v. C. & T. Supply Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania

Lattimore Mfg. Co. v. C. & T. Supply Co.

133 F. 556, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 5116

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 20, 1904

DocketNo. 34

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 133 F. 556 (Lattimore Mfg. Co. v. C. & T. Supply Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lattimore Mfg. Co. v. C. & T. Supply Co., 133 F. 556, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 5116 (circtwdpa 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, District Judge.

This is an application for a preliminary injunction sur claims 1 and .2 of patent No. 415,720, of November 26, 1889, for a lantern holder, issued to Walter A. Lattimore. The first claim of the patent was held valid by the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Iowa in the case of Lattimore v. Hardsocg. See case in 121 Fed. 986, 58 C. C. A. 327, for a report of one feature of the cause. The only question before us is that of infringement. This, to our minds, is clear as to the first claim. We find all the elements thereof present in the infringing device. The respondents have added some possibly improved additional elements, but their device clearly embodies each member of claim 1, and they co-operate in substantially the same way to accomplish the same result. As claim 2 has never been adjudged valid, and as the prayer for present relief is sufficiently answered by an injunction on claim 1, we will express at the present time no opinion as to claim 2.

Let an injunction order sur claim 1 be drawn.

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

BUFFINGTON, District Judge.

This is an application for a preliminary injunction sur claims 1 and .2 of patent No. 415,720, of November 26, 1889, for a lantern holder, issued to Walter A. Lattimore. The first claim of the patent was held valid by the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Iowa in the case of Lattimore v. Hardsocg. See case in 121 Fed. 986, 58 C. C. A. 327, for a report of one feature of the cause. The only question before us is that of infringement. This, to our minds, is clear as to the first claim. We find all the elements thereof present in the infringing device. The respondents have added some possibly improved additional elements, but their device clearly embodies each member of claim 1, and they co-operate in substantially the same way to accomplish the same result. As claim 2 has never been adjudged valid, and as the prayer for present relief is sufficiently answered by an injunction on claim 1, we will express at the present time no opinion as to claim 2.

Let an injunction order sur claim 1 be drawn.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 F. 556, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 5116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lattimore-mfg-co-v-c-t-supply-co-circtwdpa-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack