Legal Opinion
Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. Nearseal Unhairing Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided April 9, 1902No. 115PublishedCited by 2 opinions
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Appeal from an order granting a preliminary injunction restraining the appellant from infringing the eighth claim of letters patent No>. 383,258, granted to John W. Sutton, May 22, 1888, for a machine for plucking furs.
1Opinion of the Court
COXE, District Judge.
Infringement is the only question involved. The appellant contends that it does not infringe for two reasons, which are stated in the brief as follows:
“First Because it has no ‘mechanism substantially as described, whereby the brush is moved upward and forward into a position in front of the stretcher-bar.’ Second. Because the defendant’s machine does not contain a ‘separating’ brash.”
The proof of the prior art is substantially the same as in the American Unhairing Mach. Co. Case, 115 Fed. 498. The only difference worthy of comment is that in the case at bar the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Unhairing Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1902
3Cited by2 opinions
- Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. Nearseal Unhairing Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1903
- Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. Nearseal Unhairing Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1902