Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Fur Refining Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey
In Equity. Suit for infringement of letters patent No. 383,258, for a machine for plucking furs, granted to John W. Sutton, May 22, 1888. On final hearing. See (C. C. A.) 118 Fed. 838.
1Opinion of the Court
ARCHBARD, District Judge.*
The motion to strike out the expert testimony taken by plaintiffs in rebuttal is not entitled to prevail. The defendants introduced no direct or independent proofs, but in the course of the cross-examination of Carl Mischke, one of their own number, who was called as a witness by the plaintiffs, they offered a copy-of the Rake (English) patent of 1881, and drew out from the witness the declaration that the machines they used were constructed in accordance with it. This they now rely upon to defeat the plaintiffs’ case, and it was to meet and overcome it that the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Seymour v. OsborneSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Hanifen v. E. H. Godshalk Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1898
- Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Unhairing Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1902
- Hanifen v. ArmitageU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1902
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- In re GillamCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930