United States Dairy Co. v. Smith

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

United States Dairy Co. v. Smith

19 F. 97, 1880 U.S. App. LEXIS 2740

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

DecidedAugust 4, 1880

StatusPublished

This text of 19 F. 97 (United States Dairy Co. v. Smith) 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

United States Dairy Co. v. Smith, 19 F. 97, 1880 U.S. App. LEXIS 2740 (circtsdny 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Blatchford, J.

Patent No. 146,012 seems to make the use of the udder necessary in divisions 6 and 7 of the specification, in obtaining from margarine the resulting material. There is no suggestion that it may be dispensed with, or that any good result can be obtained without using it. In the reissue the udder is omitted in the description, and in claims 5 and 0, and then it is stated that the use is “expedient.” If the use of the word “expedient” brings in the ud[98]*98der as parts of claims 5 and 6, the defendant does not infringe. If the use of the udder is no part of those claims, then the reissue, as to those claims, 'claims inventions not suggested or indicated in No. 146,012, and is invalid. It may be that the proofs for final hearing may put the case in a different aspect, but, as the case now stands, the foregoing considerations are sufficient to require that the motion for injunction be denied. The same disposition is made of the motions as to Flagg and Boker.

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

Blatchford, J.

Patent No. 146,012 seems to make the use of the udder necessary in divisions 6 and 7 of the specification, in obtaining from margarine the resulting material. There is no suggestion that it may be dispensed with, or that any good result can be obtained without using it. In the reissue the udder is omitted in the description, and in claims 5 and 0, and then it is stated that the use is “expedient.” If the use of the word “expedient” brings in the ud[98]*98der as parts of claims 5 and 6, the defendant does not infringe. If the use of the udder is no part of those claims, then the reissue, as to those claims, 'claims inventions not suggested or indicated in No. 146,012, and is invalid. It may be that the proofs for final hearing may put the case in a different aspect, but, as the case now stands, the foregoing considerations are sufficient to require that the motion for injunction be denied. The same disposition is made of the motions as to Flagg and Boker.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 F. 97, 1880 U.S. App. LEXIS 2740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-dairy-co-v-smith-circtsdny-1880.