Imperial Mach. Co. v. Rees
District Court, S.D. New York
In Equity. Suits by the Imperial Machine Company against Frederick Rees and Frederick Stindt, copartners, and others, and against the Metropolitan Fife Insurance Company, for infringement of the Robinson patent, No. 809,582, for a vegetable peeling machine, granted January 9, 1906. On final hearing.
1Opinion of the Court
MAYER, District Judge.
These cases have heen tried together, and defendants do not contest the validity of the patent, but con-*613lend that, if the claims are construed in accordance with their language and in view of the prior art, they are not infringed.
The invention is highly meritorious in a modest art, and the patentee has struggled with many litigations over a long period of years to retain the fruits of his efforts. The following is a list of the cases in which decisions have been had: Judge Hough held claim 1 valid and infringed in Imperial Machine Co. v. Smith & McNeil, after trial and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- American Fruit Machinery Co. v. Robinson Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1911
- Imperial Machine Co. v. JacobusDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1914
- Eisenstadt Mfg. Co. v. J. M. Fisher Co.District Court, D. Rhode Island · 1916
- Kryptok Co. v. United Bifocal Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914
3Cited by5 opinions
- Individual Drinking Cup Co. v. ErrettCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1924
- Imperial Machine & Foundry Corp. v. BlakesleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1919
- Maxim Mfg. Co. v. Imperial Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1923
- Imperial Machine & Foundry Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1927
- Imperial Machine & Foundry Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1927