Legal Opinion

Parker v. McKee

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

Decided June 17, 1885PublishedCited by 6 opinions

In Equity.

1Opinion of the CourtWheeleb, J.

This motion for a preliminary injunction cannot be denied without oyerruling, in effect, Parker v. Stow, 23 Fed. Rep. 252, and Parker v. Montpelier Carriage Co. Id. 886, which followed that decision. There are alleged anticipating devices put into this case which were not in either of those cases, but none of them is any nearer like the patented invention than some that were in those cases and considered, nor any nearer like it than long and well known chaise and carriage tops are. A point is made that the first reissue narrowed the patent by making the locking device a necessary part of it,…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Siemens-Halske Electric Co. v. Duncan Electric Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1905
  2. Woodward v. Boston Lasting Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1894
  3. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Finley Rubber Tire Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia · 1902
  4. Martin & Hill Cash-Carrier Co. v. MartinCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1895
  5. Force v. Sawyer-Boss Mfg. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York · 1901

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API