Campbell Metal Window Corp. v. S. H. Pomeroy & Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
LEARNED HAND, District Judge.
Verbally all the claims in suit cover the defendant’s type A window, which is the only form here challenged. There is, therefore, no need to invoke that doctrine, peculiar to the law of patents, by which the language of a formal written instrument is not taken as the limit of its scope, when the result would be to defeat the obvious purpose of the grant. The defendant, however, seeks to limit the generality of the words used by interpreting them upon the disclosure of the drawings and text, invoicing in this respect an entirely legitimate canon of construction.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Spalding v. John WanamakerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1919
- Auto Pneumatic Action Co. v. Kindler & CollinsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917
- Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Condit Electrical Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1911
3Cited by10 opinions
- Bergman v. Aluminum Lock Shingle Corp. of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1957
- Sachs v. Hartford Electric Supply Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
- Alliance Securities Co. v. J. A. Mohr & SonDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1925
- Goodbody v. Firestone Steel Products Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1928
- W. S. Godwin Co. v. International Steel Tie Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1924
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.