Peck, Stow & Wilcox Co. v. Fray

92 F. 1021, 34 C.C.A. 688, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 1883
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedNovember 15, 1898
StatusPublished

This text of 92 F. 1021 (Peck, Stow & Wilcox Co. v. Fray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Peck, Stow & Wilcox Co. v. Fray, 92 F. 1021, 34 C.C.A. 688, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 1883 (2d Cir. 1898).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It would seem that the patent, if sustainable at all, must

be construed as an extremely narrow one. Manifestly, defendant’s device is not a Chinese copy of complainant’s, and appellant has introduced sufficient evidence of the prior art, as disclosed in patents, to overcome the presumption [1022]*1022arising from the issuance of the patent, — at least, if it he construed so broadly •as to cover defendant’s device, which can he done only by a liberal application ■of the doctrine of equivalents. The patent lias never been adjudicated, and its construction upon ex parte papers is too doubtful to warrant the issue of a preliminary injunction. The order for preliminary injunction (88 Fed. 784; is reversed, with costs of this appeal.

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

Related

Peck, Stow & Wilcox Co. v. Fray
88 F. 784 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 F. 1021, 34 C.C.A. 688, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 1883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peck-stow-wilcox-co-v-fray-ca2-1898.