Wright Co. v. Paulhan

180 F. 112, 103 C.C.A. 32, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4758
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided June 14, 1910·No. No. 326·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.'

This is an appeal from an order granting preliminary injunction in a suit on the Wright patent which is sued upon in Wright Company v. Herring-Curtiss Company (filed to-day) 180 Fed. 110. At the outset of appellee’s brief it is stated that the essential question on which the controversy pivots is whether or not defendant in using the alleged infringing machines utilized the rear vertical rudder in conjunction with the ailerons or adjustable margins in maintaining lateral balance. '

In this case as in the other we have conflicting affidavits as to questions of fact, and for the reasons expressed in the Herring-Cur-tiss we think the order for preliminary injunction should be reversed, with costs.

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

Wright Co. v. Paulhan, 180 F. 112, 103 C.C.A. 32, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4758 (2d Cir. 1910).

180 F. 112 (Wright Co. v. Paulhan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Montgomery v. United States
65 Ct. Cl. 526 (Court of Claims, 1928)
Lovell-McConnell Mfg. Co. v. Automobile Supply Mfg. Co.
193 F. 658 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York, 1911)
Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Brooklyn Bottle Stopper Co.
190 F. 323 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York, 1911)