Valvona-Marchiony Co. v. Louisville Cone Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky

Valvona-Marchiony Co. v. Louisville Cone Co.

207 F. 374, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 5468

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky

DecidedApril 15, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 207 F. 374 (Valvona-Marchiony Co. v. Louisville Cone Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Valvona-Marchiony Co. v. Louisville Cone Co., 207 F. 374, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 5468 (circtdky 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

EVANS, District Judge.

A careful reading of the testimony has not led me to change the views formed when the motion for an injunction pendente lite was sustained. Nor has it led me to differ from Judge McPherson in Valvona v. D’Adamo (C. C.) 135 Fed. 544, who sustained the patent which forms the basis of this action, and which has been assigned by the patentee to the complainant.

To support what we may call the positive defenses set up in the answer the defendants offered no satisfactory testimony. In view of the evidence, the opinion and ruling of Judge McPherson, and the presumptions arising in favor of the validity of the patent issued to Valvona by the United States, we have reached the conclusion that the complainant’s cause of action has been sustained, and that it is entitled to such part of the relief' prayed for in its bill as it may insist upon, though I can myself hardly see the wisdom of having an accounting with the defendants, who are apparently very poor. That, however, is for the complainant to say.

It may be remarked that we can see no difference in the applicable principles between a cup and a cone, inasmuch as the latter seems, in this connection, to be nothing more than the former in a different shape.

A judgment may be prepared and submitted.,

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

EVANS, District Judge.

A careful reading of the testimony has not led me to change the views formed when the motion for an injunction pendente lite was sustained. Nor has it led me to differ from Judge McPherson in Valvona v. D’Adamo (C. C.) 135 Fed. 544, who sustained the patent which forms the basis of this action, and which has been assigned by the patentee to the complainant.

To support what we may call the positive defenses set up in the answer the defendants offered no satisfactory testimony. In view of the evidence, the opinion and ruling of Judge McPherson, and the presumptions arising in favor of the validity of the patent issued to Valvona by the United States, we have reached the conclusion that the complainant’s cause of action has been sustained, and that it is entitled to such part of the relief' prayed for in its bill as it may insist upon, though I can myself hardly see the wisdom of having an accounting with the defendants, who are apparently very poor. That, however, is for the complainant to say.

It may be remarked that we can see no difference in the applicable principles between a cup and a cone, inasmuch as the latter seems, in this connection, to be nothing more than the former in a different shape.

A judgment may be prepared and submitted.,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 F. 374, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 5468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valvona-marchiony-co-v-louisville-cone-co-circtdky-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack