Standard Electric Works v. Manhattan Electrical Supply Co.

Second Circuit

Standard Electric Works v. Manhattan Electrical Supply Co.

212 F. 944, 129 C.C.A. 464, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2156

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 13, 1914

DocketNo. 98

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 212 F. 944 (Standard Electric Works v. Manhattan Electrical Supply Co.) 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

Standard Electric Works v. Manhattan Electrical Supply Co., 212 F. 944, 129 C.C.A. 464, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2156 (2d Cir. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The patent sued upon is No. 703,100, granted June 24, 1902, to Julius B. Wantz for a massaging implement. A prior suit for infringement was brought by the same complainant against Eureka Vibrator Company, in which Judge Hand sustained the patent and held defendant’s device to be an infringement.

The present suit was tried before the same judge, but the record was materially changed by .the introduction of much testimony which was not in the earlier suit. In consequence he changed his opinion as to the validity of the patent, on the ground that in the later case the defendant had “supplied the very link which alone was absent in the case against the Eureka Vibrator Company.” He held the patent void and dismissed the bill. We entirely concur with the reasoning which led him to that conclusion and do not think it necessary to add anything to his opinion.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The patent sued upon is No. 703,100, granted June 24, 1902, to Julius B. Wantz for a massaging implement. A prior suit for infringement was brought by the same complainant against Eureka Vibrator Company, in which Judge Hand sustained the patent and held defendant’s device to be an infringement.

The present suit was tried before the same judge, but the record was materially changed by .the introduction of much testimony which was not in the earlier suit. In consequence he changed his opinion as to the validity of the patent, on the ground that in the later case the defendant had “supplied the very link which alone was absent in the case against the Eureka Vibrator Company.” He held the patent void and dismissed the bill. We entirely concur with the reasoning which led him to that conclusion and do not think it necessary to add anything to his opinion.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 F. 944, 129 C.C.A. 464, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/standard-electric-works-v-manhattan-electrical-supply-co-ca2-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack