Home/E.D. New York/Van Kannel Revolving Door Co. v. General Bronze Corp.

Van Kannel Revolving Door Co. v. General Bronze Corp.

6 F. Supp. 518, 1934 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1732
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York
DecidedMarch 15, 1934
DocketNos. 6967, 6997
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 F. Supp. 518 (Van Kannel Revolving Door Co. v. General Bronze Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Van Kannel Revolving Door Co. v. General Bronze Corp., 6 F. Supp. 518, 1934 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1732 (E.D.N.Y. 1934).

Opinion

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

By consent the two suits were tried together.

They are based on the alleged infringement by the defendant of the following patents. The title to each is in the plaintiff.

The first action is based upon patent No. 1,890,365, issued to Robert L. Blanchard, assignor to Van Kannel Revolving Door Company, the predecessor of the plaintiff herein, for full collapsible panic proof revolving door, granted December 6, 1933, on an application filed February 26, 1931.

The second action is based upon patent No. 1,514,861, issued to Frank L. Gormley, for speed control for revolving doors and the like, granted November 11, 1924, on an application filed January 21, 1924, and assigned by mesne assignments to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff is a New Jersey, corpora^ tion, having a regular and established place of business in the borough of the Bronx, city of New York, and the defendant is a New York corporation, having a regular and established place of business in the borough of Queens, city of New York.

The defendant has interposed an answer in each of the actions, setting up the twofold defenses of invalidity and noninfringement, and in the second action the defense of unclean hands.

The defendant within the jurisdiction of this court, since the date of the patent to Blanchard, No. 1,890,365, and prior to, at the time of, and since, the filing of the bill of complaint in the first action, has manufactured, constructed, offered for sale, and sold, revolving doors embodying and containing the construction shown in the photostats Exhibits 3 and 4 herein, and the defendant within the jurisdiction of this court, since the date of the patent to Gormley, No. 1,514,851, and prior to, at the time of, and since, the filing of the bill of complaint in the said second action, has manufactured, constructed, offered for sale, and sold, revolving door constructions embodying and containing a speed control device, as shown in the photostat Exhibit 7 herein.

[519]*519

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

Related

Best Foods, Inc. v. General Mills, Inc.
3 F.R.D. 459 (D. Delaware, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 F. Supp. 518, 1934 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-kannel-revolving-door-co-v-general-bronze-corp-nyed-1934.