Standard Electric Works v. Manhattan Electrical Supply Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Appeal from the District Court of the United .States for the Southern District of New York. Suit in equity by the Standard Electric Works against the Manhattan Electrical Supply Company. Decree for defendant, and complainant appeals. The following is the opinion of the District Court by Hand, District Judge: I do not see why in the present case the defendant has not supplied the very link which alone was absent in the case against the Eureka Vibrator Company.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the United .States for the Southern District of New York. Suit in equity by the Standard Electric Works against the Manhattan Electrical Supply Company. Decree for defendant, and complainant appeals. The following is the opinion of the District Court by Hand, District Judge: I do not see why in the present case the defendant has not supplied the very link which alone was absent in the case against the Eureka Vibrator Company. At that time there was nothing in the art to show that any one had ever thought of putting the motor into the handle of a massage…
1Per curiam
The patent sued upon is No. 703,100, granted June 24, 1902, to Julius B. Wantz for a massaging implement. A prior suit for infringement was brought by the same complainant against Eureka Vibrator Company, in which Judge Hand sustained the patent and held defendant’s device to be an infringement.
The present suit was tried before the same judge, but the record was materially changed by .the introduction of much testimony which was not in the earlier suit. In consequence he changed his opinion as to the validity of the patent, on the ground that in the later case the defendant had “supplied the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- James Clark, Jr., Electric Co. v. United States Electrical Tool Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1914