Legal Opinion

Houghton v. Whitin Mach. Works

District Court, D. Massachusetts

Decided May 6, 1908No. 340Published

In Equity.

1Opinion of the Court

LOWELL, Circuit Judge.

After the decision of the Circuit Court rendered April 23, 1908 (not for publication), which directed the master to exclude from the scope of the accounting a device of the de*582fendant known as “Whitin C,” the complainant filed a petition asking for a construction of the interlocutory order of injunction now on file, m order to determine whether Whitin C is an infringement of the patent in suit. To this end, the complainant, “prays that he may be allowed to take proofs to present this infringement to the court for its ruling thereon, and that said Whitin Exhibit C may be…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. Christensen Engineering Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1904
  2. Murray v. Orr & Lockett Hardware Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1907
  3. Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. Christensen Engineering Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1903
  4. Higy v. Columbia Rubber Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1883
  5. Staples & Hanford Co. v. LordCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1906

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API