Hildreth v. Auerbach
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Appeal from the District Court of the United .States for the Southern District oí New York. This cause comes here upon cross-appeals from a decree of the District Court, Southern District of New York. The suit was brought for alleged infringement of two patents, both owned by complainant — No. 832,384, granted October 2, 1906, to complainant for a candy-pulling machine, and No. 857,770, granted June 25, 1907, to Charles Thibodeau, assignor, for a candy-pulling machine.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the United .States for the Southern District oí New York. This cause comes here upon cross-appeals from a decree of the District Court, Southern District of New York. The suit was brought for alleged infringement of two patents, both owned by complainant — No. 832,384, granted October 2, 1906, to complainant for a candy-pulling machine, and No. 857,770, granted June 25, 1907, to Charles Thibodeau, assignor, for a candy-pulling machine. The District Judge, following the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, held that die earlier of these patents was…
1Opinion of the Court
LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.
[1] Judge Bland followed the earlier opinions of Judge Rose and of the Court of Appeals for the B'ourth Circuit, but evidently with considerable doubt. We are of the opinion that in these earlier opinions too broad a construction was given to the earlier Dickinson patent, which was found to negative invention in Hildreth. Dickinson first showed the “in and out” or “figure 8” mo*652tion of the pulling parts, and claimed it distinctively; but he showed no means for supporting the candy, except the trough in which it lies. He repeatedly refers to the trough as the “candy…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Schute v. HildrethCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1925
- United States Hat Machinery Corp. v. Boesch Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939