Bryce Bros. v. Seneca Glass Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern West Virginia
In Equity. Suit instituted by the Bryce Bros. Company, assignee of Henry C. Schrader of letters patent No. 592,920, issued November 2, 1897, against the Seneca Glass Company, alleging infringement and praying injunction and accounting. The defendant company has by answer denied infringement, assailed the validity of the patent, and asserted its abandonment, anticipation, and prior use.
Read the full summary
In Equity. Suit instituted by the Bryce Bros. Company, assignee of Henry C. Schrader of letters patent No. 592,920, issued November 2, 1897, against the Seneca Glass Company, alleging infringement and praying injunction and accounting. The defendant company has by answer denied infringement, assailed the validity of the patent, and asserted its abandonment, anticipation, and prior use. The patent is for a machine with -which to etch or engrave glassware, and can best be understood here, in the absence of the machine itself, by the drawings and specification of the patent itself, as follows:…
1Opinion of the CourtDayton, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). If the patent in suit is to be upheld, I have no difficulty in determining that the machines used by defendant company are plain and palpable infringements. These machines were built for it by the Schiffbauers, and, as the evidence discloses, are made almost ex*167actly after the drawings filed by Gustav Schiffbauer with his application for patent No. 645,333, issued to him March 13, 1900. A comparison of these drawings and those of defendant’s machines with those filed by Schrader with his patent convinces me that substantially the only changes Schiffbauer has…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- The Barbed Wire PatentSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Elizabeth v. Pavement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Morgan v. DanielsSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1877
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Solo Cup Company v. Paper MacHinery CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1965
- American Caramel Co. v. Thomas Mills & Bro.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1906