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: 34
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
34 ' '. : 256 #EDERAL'RIPURTER,
tntirly 'at liberty to do so'; hence we fail to perceive how or why any-
thing done or omitted under the Kenney patents' affects rights under
those' of Weber. '
" Assuming now validity and scope as heretofore decided, the'
question 'of infringement (viewed most favorably to defendant) is
whether something made in conformity with Klein, No. 1,146,885,
must pay tribute to Weber. As not infrequently occurs, the question
is complicated by the possibility of making sockets of such varying
fit of parts or strength of metal that they do not all work alike. We
agree with A. N. Hand, J., in the court below, that some of defendant's
sockets are so made as' to engage sleeve and cap with and by a simple
longitudinal thrust, others require a rocking movement and invite the
use of the tool suggested in Klein's disclosure, but none of them, when
made as suggested and unworn, will or can lock by the frictional en-
gagement of Kenney.
If they engage by a straight thrust, infringement is too clear for
discussion; if they fit only under force, it is but a question of degree
whether thumb pressure suffices, or hand power is increased by the
use of Klein's lever; it ib hand power just the same. The vital point
is that Weber's way is to engage by a straight thrust, and release by
pressure on the sleeve at a point under an engaging projection. De-
fendant always effects both processes in substantially the same way,
because, under the range of equivalents always hitherto accorded these
patents, it makes no difference that sometimes defendant's cap has to
be rocked on, and disengaged with more power than resides in most
Order affirmed, with costs.
AMERICAN ELECTRIC WELDING CO. et al. v. LALANCE & GROSJEAN
MFG. CO. J
(District Court, D. Massachusetts. July 31, 1917.)
1. PATENTS 4i288--INFRINGEMENT SUITS-JUBISDICTION-NONRERIDENT DE,
FENDANT-"REGULAR AND ESTABLISHED PACE OF BUSINESS."
A New York manufacturing corporation; whose only business done in
Massachusetts was to maintain a room in Boston in charge of a salesman,
with one stenographer, such salesman soliciting and forwarding orders,
which were passed on and, if accepted, filled, and collections made by the
company from New York, held not to have a "regular and established
'place Of business" in Massachuseltt, within Judiclal Code, i 48 (Comp. St.
1 1080), and not subject, to suit for infriugeteuxt in,that district.
':i ,[ld. Note.--Ior' other definitions, see Words ,ald, Phrases, First and
: Second Serg, Established Place, of ,usinesp.]
2. PaTENTs R I8 It AINQE~ENT SU IT-JJURISDICTION- - PLAcE OF: BUSJ-
N, NI IN 3).rT iQi
" ' place o business , a foreg corporation, which renders it subject
' tb. an ifrinki nt litt'in'at district,, bnder'Judicial Code, i 48 (Comp.
r St. 5 1080), is not any 9It%' Whei"ttahnsactlons relating to its business 'nay
ok other as ase same topic & IEY-NiMBER In all Key-Numbered Digesta & Indexes
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
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/m1/48/: accessed May 23, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.