The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 256: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, May-July, 1919. Page: 32
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
256 FEDERAL REPORTER r
3. ESTOPPEL -r -EQuITABLE ESTOPPEL.
Logically there can be no equitable estoppel, unless the party against
whom it is asserted is seeking to do something injurious to the party set-
ting up the estoppel.
4. PATENTS 0:328-V--ALInDITY--INFINGEMENT.
The Weber patents, No. 743,206 and No. 916,812, for electric lamp
sockets, held infringed by defendant's device, made in conformity with
the Klein patent, No. 1,146,885.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the' South-
ern District of New York.
Suit by the Weber Electric Company against the Cuttl'er-Hammer
Manufacturing Company. Prom an order granting plaintiff an in-
junction pendente lite, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The order granted an injunction pendente lite, in action on patents
to Weber, No. 743,206, claims 1 to 4, inclusive, and No. 916,812,
W. Clyde Jones and Arthur B. Seibold, both of Chicago, Ill. (E.
B. H. Tower, Jr., of Milwaukee, Wis., and Everett N. Ctrtis, of Bos-
ton, Mass., of counsel), for appellant.
Frederick P. Fish, of Boston, Mass., and Frank C. Ctirtis, of Troy,
N. Y., for appellee.
Before WARD, HOUGH, and MANTON, Circuit Judges.'
HOUGH, Circuit Judge. Each of these patents, and all the claims
in suit (and some others), have been considered in: this court, as well
as other jurisdictions.
For the language of the claims, reference may be had to Weber,
etc., Co. v. National, etc., Co. (D. C.) 204 Fed. 79, which decision we
affirmed in 212 Fed. 948, 129 C. C.-A. 468. The Third Citcuit arrived
at the same conclusion in Weber, etc., Co. v. Union, etc., Co. (D. C.)
226 Fed. 482, and also in a decision by Davis, J., affecting No. 743,206
only, filed November 6, 1918, in the District of New Jersey. Weber
Electric Co. v. E. H. Freeman Electric Co., 253 Fed. 657. In the
First Circuit, Dodge, J., also expressed opinion on the.same patent
in Weber, etc., Co. v. Wirt, etc., Co. (D. C.) 226 Fed. 481.
The substance of No. 743,206 is well stated by Rellstab, J., in
(D. C.) 226 Fed. 485. This elder patent is the principal invention,
and the relation to it of the improvement (916,812), is amply shown by
Ray, J., in 204 Fed. 83.
These patents have thus for years, and until the term of the older
grant is nearly spent, succeeded in the courts, and in the business
world. They have become and are the foundation of a.large business,
in no small part based upon the above-recited judicial recognition,
the propriety of which is now challenged by a new defendant, who
makes and sells what is asserted to be no infringement, even should
the scope and interpretation heretofore so widely given to Weber's
patents be still adhered to.
cmFor other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 256: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, May-July, 1919., legislative document, 1919; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38827/m1/46/: accessed July 20, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.