New York Air-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse Air-Brake Co.

Second Circuit

New York Air-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse Air-Brake Co.

69 F. 715, 16 C.C.A. 371, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2424

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided May 28, 1895·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

PEE CURIAM.

We agree with the court below that the defendant’s apparatus is an infringement of the first, second, and fourth claims of patent No. 360,070, and deem it unnecessary to add anything to the opinion of Judge Lacombe. The question whether the apparatus is an infringement of the first claim of patent No. 37(5,-837 is too doubtful to be resolved in favor of trie complainant upon a motion for a preliminary injunction, and should be reserved for disposition upon the final hearing of the cause. So far as thé order appealed from allows an injunction for the infringement of this claim, it should be reversed; otherwise, it is affirmed. Ordered accordingly.

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

PEE CURIAM.

We agree with the court below that the defendant’s apparatus is an infringement of the first, second, and fourth claims of patent No. 360,070, and deem it unnecessary to add anything to the opinion of Judge Lacombe. The question whether the apparatus is an infringement of the first claim of patent No. 37(5,-837 is too doubtful to be resolved in favor of trie complainant upon a motion for a preliminary injunction, and should be reserved for disposition upon the final hearing of the cause. So far as thé order appealed from allows an injunction for the infringement of this claim, it should be reversed; otherwise, it is affirmed. Ordered accordingly.

New York Air-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse Air-Brake Co., 69 F. 715, 16 C.C.A. 371, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2424 (2d Cir. 1895).

Pincite

69 F. 715 (New York Air-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse Air-Brake Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related