Legal Opinion

Klauder-Weldon Dyeing Mach. Co. v. Steadwell Dyeing Mach. Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York

Decided May 13, 1903Published

This bill in equity was filed herein, praying that the defendants, and each and every of them, may be restrained and enjoined, provisionally and perpetually, from directly or indirectly making, constructing, using, vending, delivering, working, or in any wise counterfeiting or imitating, claims i, 2, 3, and 4 of letters patent for dyeing apparatus, No. 354,281, dated December 14, 1886, and for which application was filed September 15, 1886, and also praying an accounting by…

Read the full summary

This bill in equity was filed herein, praying that the defendants, and each and every of them, may be restrained and enjoined, provisionally and perpetually, from directly or indirectly making, constructing, using, vending, delivering, working, or in any wise counterfeiting or imitating, claims i, 2, 3, and 4 of letters patent for dyeing apparatus, No. 354,281, dated December 14, 1886, and for which application was filed September 15, 1886, and also praying an accounting by the defendants of the profits they have acquired and die damages suffered by the complainant by reason of an alleged…

1Opinion of the Court

RAY, District Judge.

The letters patent in question were duly issued to Leonard Weldon December 14, 1886, upon an application filed September 15, 1886, for a dyeing apparatus. April 19, 1891, the said patent, and all right, title, and interest in and to the same, were duly assigned to the complainant by an instrument in writing recorded in the transfers of patents of the United States Patent Office on the 3d day of July, 1891, in Liber W44, p. 142, of transfers.

Claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 of said patent, alleged to be infringed, read as follows:

“(1) In a dyeing apparatus, the combination, with the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
  2. Winans v. DenmeadSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
  3. Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Minnesota Moline Plow Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1902
  4. Stilwell-Bierce & Smith-Vaile Co. v. Eufaula Cotton Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1902
  5. Davis v. PerryCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1903

5 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