Hartford v. Hollander
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
In Equity. Suit for infringement of reissue letters patent No. 12,437 (original No. 695,508) for a frictional retarding device for spring vehicles issued January 16, 1906, to Jules M. M. Truffault, and reissue No. 12,399 (original No. 743,995), issued November 7, 1905, to the same patentee for an antivibration device for vehicles. On final hearing.
1Opinion of the Court
PRATT, District Judge.
Upon the hearing it struck me that the complainant had no case, unless he was entitled to a construction of patent No. 1 in suit, which would prevent any trespassing upon the broad monopoly of a rotary shock absorber as an adjunct to vehicle springs. As I listened I could not think that the situation disclosed such a monopoly. Upon taking the matter up again, my first impressions are intensified. In the original patent the inventor disclosed three ways of using friction to retard shocks and claimed their combined use produced from a unitary motive power. He neither said…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hartford v. Westen Mfg. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1909
- Westen Mfg. Co. v. HartfordCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1912