Consolidated Fastener Co. v. Columbian Fastener Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York
The patent was before the court on a motion for a preliminary injunction. 73 Fed. 828. The question of jurisdiction then decided is not again argued. The claims involved are there set out. There is also a quotation from the specification. These need not he repeated.
1Opinion of the Court
COXE, District Judge.
Is the Raymond patent void for lack of invention? Is it infringed? These are the two questions to be answered. The claims in controversy, the first and third, relate to a spring stud intended to be used as one member of a snap fastener, the other member being a receiving socket, with which the spring stud engages. The patentee describes in the specification the fastening devices in two prior patents granted to him and. points out the objections to them. To obviate these difficulties he produced the construction in controversy. The stud of the patent is composed of three…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Potts v. CreagerSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Cantrell v. WallickSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Bates v. CoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Morley Sewing MacHine Co. v. LancasterSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Pickering v. McCulloughSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1901
- Hutter v. De Q. Bottle Stopper Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1904
- Ryder v. SchlichterCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1903
- Western Electric Co. v. Home Tel. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Alabama · 1898
- Glucose Sugar Refining Co. v. St. Louis Syrup & Preserving Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1905
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.