Waltham Watch Co. v. Keene

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

Waltham Watch Co. v. Keene

191 F. 855, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 5543

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

DecidedNovember 3, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 191 F. 855 (Waltham Watch Co. v. Keene) 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

Waltham Watch Co. v. Keene, 191 F. 855, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 5543 (circtsdny 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

COXE, Circuit Judge.

The principal question presented by this demurrer is whether the owner of two letters patent covering certain improvements in watches known as “Riverside movements” may, by notice attached thereto, impose conditions as to their sale, including the price at which they may be resold, which notice shall be binding upon purchasers from complainant who sell said movements in violation of its provisions.

To put a concrete case, Is a retailer who purchases from the complainant a “Riverside movement,” with instructions not to sell the same for less than $25, liable in equity if he sells for less than that sum?

I think the question must be answered in the affirmative. Many of the authorities have gone much further in sustaining the right of the owner of a patent to impose conditions upon those who seek to use his monopoly. Heaton Peninsular Co. v. Eureka Co., 77 Fed. 288, 25 C. C. A. 267, 35 L. R. A. 728; Victor Talking Machine Co. v. The Fair, 123 Fed. 424, 61 C. C. A. 58; Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Standard Brewery (C. C.) 174 Fed. 252. See, also, as indicating the opinion of the writer as to the limits within which the doctrine of contributory infringement should be confined, Cortelyou v. Johnson, 145 Fed. 933, 76 C. C. A. 455; Id., 207 U. S. 196, 28 Sup. Ct. 105, 52 L. Ed. 167.

The demurrer should he overruled with leave to the defendant to answer within 20 days from the date of the order.

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

COXE, Circuit Judge.

The principal question presented by this demurrer is whether the owner of two letters patent covering certain improvements in watches known as “Riverside movements” may, by notice attached thereto, impose conditions as to their sale, including the price at which they may be resold, which notice shall be binding upon purchasers from complainant who sell said movements in violation of its provisions.

To put a concrete case, Is a retailer who purchases from the complainant a “Riverside movement,” with instructions not to sell the same for less than $25, liable in equity if he sells for less than that sum?

I think the question must be answered in the affirmative. Many of the authorities have gone much further in sustaining the right of the owner of a patent to impose conditions upon those who seek to use his monopoly. Heaton Peninsular Co. v. Eureka Co., 77 Fed. 288, 25 C. C. A. 267, 35 L. R. A. 728; Victor Talking Machine Co. v. The Fair, 123 Fed. 424, 61 C. C. A. 58; Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Standard Brewery (C. C.) 174 Fed. 252. See, also, as indicating the opinion of the writer as to the limits within which the doctrine of contributory infringement should be confined, Cortelyou v. Johnson, 145 Fed. 933, 76 C. C. A. 455; Id., 207 U. S. 196, 28 Sup. Ct. 105, 52 L. Ed. 167.

The demurrer should he overruled with leave to the defendant to answer within 20 days from the date of the order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 F. 855, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 5543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waltham-watch-co-v-keene-circtsdny-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack