Fligel v. Sears
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Bill by Bernard I. Fligel and Mitchell Fligel, copartners doing business as Fligel & Son, against Sears, Roebuck & Co. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainants appeal.
1Opinion of the Court
MANTON, Circuit Judge.
[1] The patent in suit, No. 1,099,031, was for a waterproof garment, including a cape and hood, with the hood having a front band capable of folding forward to constitute a visor when the hood is up, and capable of contraction and fastening to give the appearance of a military collar when the hood is down. The defendants, a large mail-order house, do not manufacture, but sold the alleged infringing garments, which were manufactured by another. The District Judge held there was no invention and no infringement. We disagree with his conclusion that there was no invention…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- The Barbed Wire PatentSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- David v. HarrisCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1913
- Greenwald Bros. v. La Vogue Petticoat Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1915
- Witzel v. BermanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kurtz v. Belle Hat Lining Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922