Stephenson v. Second Avenue Railroad

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

Stephenson v. Second Avenue Railroad

1 F. 416, 5 Ban. & A. 116, 1880 U.S. App. LEXIS 2374

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 1880

StatusPublished

This text of 1 F. 416 (Stephenson v. Second Avenue Railroad) 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

Stephenson v. Second Avenue Railroad, 1 F. 416, 5 Ban. & A. 116, 1880 U.S. App. LEXIS 2374 (circtsdny 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Wheeler, J.

TÍie only real question 'presented at the hearing oft'l^s cause upon the pleadings as drawn, under the law, and the evidence admissible in support of them, is whether the re-issued patent No. 6,6d7, dated October 11, 1875, is for the same invention as that for which the original patent No. 61,482, dated January 22, 1867, was granted. Upon a careful examination of each, although there are several things mentioned and described in the specification of the re-issue not mentioned or described in that of the original, and although the claims are quite different, there is nothing mentioned or described in the specification of the re-issue not shown in the drawings or model of the original, so far as has been observed, and there is no element of any combination, or arrangement,or device, claimed in the re-isssue that is not either mentioned or described in the original as performing, or intended to perform, the office assigned to it in the reissue. Therefore, it cannot be held that the re-issue is for any different invention from that described in the original.

Let a decree be entered for the orator for an injunction against further infringement of any of the patents described in the bill except.No. 1,959, dated June 14, 1864, for a design, which has expired, and for an account according to the prayer of the bill, with costs.

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

Wheeler, J.

TÍie only real question 'presented at the hearing oft'l^s cause upon the pleadings as drawn, under the law, and the evidence admissible in support of them, is whether the re-issued patent No. 6,6d7, dated October 11, 1875, is for the same invention as that for which the original patent No. 61,482, dated January 22, 1867, was granted. Upon a careful examination of each, although there are several things mentioned and described in the specification of the re-issue not mentioned or described in that of the original, and although the claims are quite different, there is nothing mentioned or described in the specification of the re-issue not shown in the drawings or model of the original, so far as has been observed, and there is no element of any combination, or arrangement,or device, claimed in the re-isssue that is not either mentioned or described in the original as performing, or intended to perform, the office assigned to it in the reissue. Therefore, it cannot be held that the re-issue is for any different invention from that described in the original.

Let a decree be entered for the orator for an injunction against further infringement of any of the patents described in the bill except.No. 1,959, dated June 14, 1864, for a design, which has expired, and for an account according to the prayer of the bill, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 F. 416, 5 Ban. & A. 116, 1880 U.S. App. LEXIS 2374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephenson-v-second-avenue-railroad-circtsdny-1880.