Legal Opinion
E. L. Mansure Co. v. Consolidated Trimming Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided May 13, 1936PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
PATTERSON, District Judge.
The suit is for infringement of patent. The patent said to have been infringed is patent to Arnold, 1,390,267, applied for November 30, 1920, and issued September 13, 1921. The patent is on a machine for making tufts or balls and applying them to fringes. The product, ball fringe, is used for decorative purposes on various fabrics. The defenses are invalidity and noninfringement.
The Arnold machine is one whereby a warp of threads is tightly bound by wire, a loop of fringe being bound in by the wire at the same time; the warp is cut above the binding, so that a tuft…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Smith & Griggs Manufacturing Co. v. SpragueSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Hobbs v. BeachSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Aerovox Corporation v. Polymet Mfg. CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1933
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Blessing v. Consolidated Trimming Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1939