Hutter v. De Q. Bottle Stopper Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, sustaining the validity of two certain letters patent, granted to the complainant. The first of these, No. 491,113, dated February 2, 1893, is for a combination of mechanical elements constituting a bottle stopper.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, sustaining the validity of two certain letters patent, granted to the complainant. The first of these, No. 491,113, dated February 2, 1893, is for a combination of mechanical elements constituting a bottle stopper. The second, No. 25,435, dated April 28, 1896, is for a design for a bottle stopper. The opinion of the Circuit Judge is reported in 119 Fed. 190. The opinion of Judge Cray, in the…
1Opinion of the Court
COXE, Circuit Judge.
Little need be added to the careful and comprehensive discussion of the defenses challenging the validity of the mechanical patent, to be found in the opinion delivered in flutter v. Broome. It was there decided .that the introduction into the *284old mechanism of a stopper having in the top a heart-shaped slot resulted in a new combination producing a useful and novel result. That the theater of invention was circumscribed was admitted in the New Jersey case, but the court found that the advantages attributable to the new element were of sufficient importance to sustain…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Bowers v. Atlantic, G. & P. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1900
- Consolidated Fastener Co. v. Columbian Fastener Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1897
- Howard v. St. Paul Plow-WorksU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota · 1888
- King v. AndersonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1898
- Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. RidderU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1895
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Dangler v. Imperial MacH. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1926
- Claude Neon Lights, Inc. v. American Neon Light CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
- Neff Instrument Corporation, a Corporation v. Cohu Electronics, Inc., and Neely EnterprisesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1959
- Saxlehner v. EisnerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1906
- United Shirt & Collar Co. v. BeattieCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1906
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.