Treibacher Chemische Werke Gesellschaft Mit Beschränkter Haftung v. Wolf Safety Lamp Co. of America, Inc.

S.D. New York

Treibacher Chemische Werke Gesellschaft Mit Beschränkter Haftung v. Wolf Safety Lamp Co. of America, Inc.

214 F. 414, 1914 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1818

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedApril 30, 1914

DocketNo. 109

StatusPublished

This text of 214 F. 414 (Treibacher Chemische Werke Gesellschaft Mit Beschränkter Haftung v. Wolf Safety Lamp Co. of America, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Treibacher Chemische Werke Gesellschaft Mit Beschränkter Haftung v. Wolf Safety Lamp Co. of America, Inc., 214 F. 414, 1914 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1818 (S.D.N.Y. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

WARD, Circuit Judge.

Judge Hough has held not only that the plaintiff’s patent is valid, but that it is a pioneer, entitled to the most liberal range of equivalents. Although the granting of a preliminary injunction is a matter of discretion, it is our practice in this district to follow the prior decisions of our colleagues. An alloy of cerium and magnesium was held in the adjudicated case to be an infringement, and I think the alloy of cerium and cadmium used by the defendant quite as much so. Therefore a preliminary injunction must go. As the defendant insists that this will increase the danger to life in the mines, and as the infringement consists merely of the use of a metal pin costing two or three cents in the igniting device, I will suspend its operation until the further order of the court, so far -as to let the defendant supply metal pins for use in safety lamps heretofore sold, upon giving proper security to the complainant for the payment of any damages or profits that may be awarded to it. Hereafter the defendant must sell only safety lamps equipped with the paraffine friction igniter which it says in its catalogue for 1914 is safer than its metal pin igniter.

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

WARD, Circuit Judge.

Judge Hough has held not only that the plaintiff’s patent is valid, but that it is a pioneer, entitled to the most liberal range of equivalents. Although the granting of a preliminary injunction is a matter of discretion, it is our practice in this district to follow the prior decisions of our colleagues. An alloy of cerium and magnesium was held in the adjudicated case to be an infringement, and I think the alloy of cerium and cadmium used by the defendant quite as much so. Therefore a preliminary injunction must go. As the defendant insists that this will increase the danger to life in the mines, and as the infringement consists merely of the use of a metal pin costing two or three cents in the igniting device, I will suspend its operation until the further order of the court, so far -as to let the defendant supply metal pins for use in safety lamps heretofore sold, upon giving proper security to the complainant for the payment of any damages or profits that may be awarded to it. Hereafter the defendant must sell only safety lamps equipped with the paraffine friction igniter which it says in its catalogue for 1914 is safer than its metal pin igniter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 F. 414, 1914 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/treibacher-chemische-werke-gesellschaft-mit-beschrankter-haftung-v-wolf-nysd-1914.