Legal Opinion

Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Royal Typewriter Co.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided May 12, 1915No. 261PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. This action was brought upon claims 1 and 3 of a patent issued to E. J. Manning, No. 609,036, dated August 16, 1898; claims 16 and 18 of a patent to P. X. Wagner, No. 624,135, May 2, 1899, and all the claims, five in number, of a patent to É. G. Kunath, No. 845,240, of February 26, 1907. After the hearing, a motion was made by the complainant to add to the record letters patent No.…

Read the full summary

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. This action was brought upon claims 1 and 3 of a patent issued to E. J. Manning, No. 609,036, dated August 16, 1898; claims 16 and 18 of a patent to P. X. Wagner, No. 624,135, May 2, 1899, and all the claims, five in number, of a patent to É. G. Kunath, No. 845,240, of February 26, 1907. After the hearing, a motion was made by the complainant to add to the record letters patent No. 1,100,301 issued .to the defendant as assignee of Hess, June 16, 1914. This motion was granted.

1Opinion of the Court

COXE, Circuit Judge,

[1] The record shows that the typewriting art has been developing for at least 40 years, during which period, although the general principle of operation remained unchanged, innumerable changes have been made and minor improvements added. At the dates of the Manning, Wagner and Kunath patents there was no opportunity for a broad generic invention in typewriters and it cannot be successfully contended that the claims in issue cover such an invention. They, must be strictly construed and limited to the precise improvements claimed. There is no room for the doctrine of…

2Cited by11 opinions

  1. Proudfit Loose Leaf Co. v. Kalamazoo Loose Leaf Binder Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1915
  2. Gibbs v. Triumph Trap Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
  3. Wichita Visible Gasoline Pump Co. v. Clear Vision Pump Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1927
  4. Wachs v. BalsamCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
  5. Russell Grader Mfg. Co. v. F. B. Zeig Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1919

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API