Wollensak Optical Co. v. Ilex Optical Co.

Second Circuit

Wollensak Optical Co. v. Ilex Optical Co.

209 F. 232, 126 C.C.A. 610, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1788

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 11, 1913

DocketNo. 21

StatusPublished

This text of 209 F. 232 (Wollensak Optical Co. v. Ilex Optical Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wollensak Optical Co. v. Ilex Optical Co., 209 F. 232, 126 C.C.A. 610, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1788 (2d Cir. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It is manifest that this is a crowded art and that there can be no broad range of equivalents. All that the first patent shows is an arrangement inter sese of four operating terminals, all integral with the so-called master-lever. Assuming .that patentee’s arrangement was a novel one and that it accomplished sufficient improvement to sustain a patent, it is not infringed by an arrangement, which, as defendant’s does, omits one of these four parts.

As to the second patent. In such a crowded art it must be confined to the details shown and embodied in the claims. We concur in Judge Hazel’s disposition of the cause and see no reason to add anything to his discussion.

The decree is affirmed with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

It is manifest that this is a crowded art and that there can be no broad range of equivalents. All that the first patent shows is an arrangement inter sese of four operating terminals, all integral with the so-called master-lever. Assuming .that patentee’s arrangement was a novel one and that it accomplished sufficient improvement to sustain a patent, it is not infringed by an arrangement, which, as defendant’s does, omits one of these four parts.

As to the second patent. In such a crowded art it must be confined to the details shown and embodied in the claims. We concur in Judge Hazel’s disposition of the cause and see no reason to add anything to his discussion.

The decree is affirmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 F. 232, 126 C.C.A. 610, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wollensak-optical-co-v-ilex-optical-co-ca2-1913.