Legal Opinion

Taigman v. Desure

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided March 13, 1918No. 75PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Bill by Max Taigman against Samuel Desure, trading as D. & D. Eledtric Company, and'another. From a decree for complainant, holding the first patent valid and infringed, and dismissing the hill for infringement as to the second patent, the parties cross-appeal.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Bill by Max Taigman against Samuel Desure, trading as D. & D. Eledtric Company, and'another. From a decree for complainant, holding the first patent valid and infringed, and dismissing the hill for infringement as to the second patent, the parties cross-appeal. The plaintiff alleges that he is the owner of an undivided two-thirds interest in letters patent No. 984,327, issued to David Wald, Otto O. Britsch, and the plaintiff on February 14, 1911: the plaintiff’s two-thirds interest in the latter patent…

1Opinion of the CourtRogers, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The first patent in suit, No. 984,327, is for a motor-control apparatus, and has reference more particularly to apparatus of this class which serves to exactly control the operation of electric motors, to start and stop the same, or to vary the speed. The second patent in suit, No. 1,044,944, is for a pulley brake for motor-controlled apparatus, and is particularly adapted for a brake mechanism on a motor-actuated sewing machine. These two patents were before this court in Taigman v. Forsberg, 223 Fed. 787, 139 C. C. A. 607. We then held that the patents…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Taigman v. ForsbergCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1915

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Bechik Products, Inc. v. Flexible Products, Inc., a Corporation, and Morris Goldstein, Max Goldstein and Leo Goldstein, D/B/A Crown Mattress Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1955
  2. Flat Slabs Patents Co. v. Wright, Barrett & Stilwell Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1920

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API