Wooster v. Howe Machine Co.

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

Wooster v. Howe Machine Co.

21 F. 67, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2335

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided July 22, 1884·Published

Opinion

Blatchford, Justice.

The decision herewith made, in Wooster v. Handy, ante, 51, requires that the bill in this case should be dismissed as to both of the reissued patents sued on, because of their invalidity as respeots claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 of the Pipo reissue, and claims 8 and 9 of the Bobjohn reissue; the dismissal to be with costs.

The same decision is made in the suits against the following defendants : The Singer Manufacturing Company, a New York corporation; the Wilcox & Gibbs Sewing-machine Company; the Domestic Sewing-machine Company, impleaded, etc.; Allen Schenck, impleaded, etc.; the Singer Manufacturing Company, a New Jersey corporation; and Charles B. Barker.

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

Blatchford, Justice.

The decision herewith made, in Wooster v. Handy, ante, 51, requires that the bill in this case should be dismissed as to both of the reissued patents sued on, because of their invalidity as respeots claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 of the Pipo reissue, and claims 8 and 9 of the Bobjohn reissue; the dismissal to be with costs.

The same decision is made in the suits against the following defendants : The Singer Manufacturing Company, a New York corporation; the Wilcox & Gibbs Sewing-machine Company; the Domestic Sewing-machine Company, impleaded, etc.; Allen Schenck, impleaded, etc.; the Singer Manufacturing Company, a New Jersey corporation; and Charles B. Barker.

Wooster v. Howe Machine Co., 21 F. 67, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2335 (circtsdny 1884).

Pincite

21 F. 67 (Wooster v. Howe Machine Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.