Office Specialty Manuf'g Co. v. Cooke

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

Office Specialty Manuf'g Co. v. Cooke

64 F. 133, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 3032

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 64 F. 133 (Office Specialty Manuf'g Co. v. Cooke) 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

Office Specialty Manuf'g Co. v. Cooke, 64 F. 133, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 3032 (circtsdny 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

LAOOMBE, Circuit «Judge.

As to patents Nos. 812,086 and 831,259, there have been no prior adjudications sustaining them. It is true that very many letter files embodying the devices described in them have been sold, but such letter files appear1 also to have contained oilier devices as well. In view of the small cost of the articles, and Ihe multitude of other varieties of letter files on tin' market, the mere fact that there have been extensive sales is very unsatisfactory evidence of a public acquiescence in the validity of the patents. Patent No. 217,909 appears to have been twice sustained by Judge Blodgett (Shannon v. Printing Co., 9 Fed. 205; Schlicht & Field Co. v. Chicago Sewing Mach. Co., 36 Fed. 585); but there was before Mm neither the “English file” nor the Dixon patent, which are introduced here. Neither of these, it is true, is an anticipation; but, when examined in connection with the other patents which were before .fudge Blodgett they make the question of patentable invention, to say the least, a doubtful one, and a preliminary injunction, therefore, should be denied.

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

LAOOMBE, Circuit «Judge.

As to patents Nos. 812,086 and 831,259, there have been no prior adjudications sustaining them. It is true that very many letter files embodying the devices described in them have been sold, but such letter files appear1 also to have contained oilier devices as well. In view of the small cost of the articles, and Ihe multitude of other varieties of letter files on tin' market, the mere fact that there have been extensive sales is very unsatisfactory evidence of a public acquiescence in the validity of the patents. Patent No. 217,909 appears to have been twice sustained by Judge Blodgett (Shannon v. Printing Co., 9 Fed. 205; Schlicht & Field Co. v. Chicago Sewing Mach. Co., 36 Fed. 585); but there was before Mm neither the “English file” nor the Dixon patent, which are introduced here. Neither of these, it is true, is an anticipation; but, when examined in connection with the other patents which were before .fudge Blodgett they make the question of patentable invention, to say the least, a doubtful one, and a preliminary injunction, therefore, should be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 F. 133, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 3032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-specialty-manufg-co-v-cooke-circtsdny-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack