A. R. Mosler & Co. v. Lurie
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern .District of' New York. This cause comes here upon appeal from a decree of the District Court, Southern District of New York, which dismissed bill of complaint, in an equity suit brought for infringement of patent. The patent is No. 612,701, issued October 18, 1898 (on application dated August 5, 1897), to Frank W. Canfield for an “igniter or sparker for gas, oil, or vapor engines.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern .District of' New York. This cause comes here upon appeal from a decree of the District Court, Southern District of New York, which dismissed bill of complaint, in an equity suit brought for infringement of patent. The patent is No. 612,701, issued October 18, 1898 (on application dated August 5, 1897), to Frank W. Canfield for an “igniter or sparker for gas, oil, or vapor engines.” The opinion of the District Court will be found in 200 Fed. 433.
1Opinion of the Court
LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.
The patentee in his specifications states that the object of his invention is to produce a méthod of insulating the electrodes of gas, oil, or vapor engines that will not foul injuriously, so that it will remain in working order, causing the igniting *365spark to jump across the space between the points of the electrodes. He states that:
“It is a well-known fact that up to this time the fouling of the insulation of the electrodes * * * has been the greatest objection to the successful use of an electric current * * * to pass between the points of stationary electrodes placed…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Menendez v. HoltSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Richardson v. D. M. Osborne & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1899
- Gray Telephone Pay Station Co. v. Baird Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1909
- Richardson v. OsborneU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1897
- Consolidated Bunging Apparatus Co. v. Metropolitan Brewing Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1894
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLCSupreme Court of the United States · 2017
- Cravens L. Wanlass, Energystics, Inc. And Wanlass International, Inc. v. General Electric CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Dwight & Lloyd Sintering Co. v. GreenawaltCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
- Potash Co. of America v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1954
- Valvoline Oil Co. v. Havoline Oil Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1913
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.