Legal Opinion

Adt v. E. Kirstein Sons Co.

District Court, W.D. New York

Decided January 8, 1918PublishedCited by 1 opinion

In Equity. Suit by Deo E. Adt against the E. Kirstein Sons Company. Decree for defendant.

1Opinion of the Court

HAZED, District Judge.

We are here concerned with the alleged infringement by the defendant company of various letters patent relating to eyeglass 'mountings, issued to Deo F. Adt, as follows: Reissue letters patent No. 13,466, dated. September 17, 1912 (originally No. 1,019,115, dated March 5, 1912), patents Nos. 1,040,094 and 1,-040,096, both dated October 1, 1912, and patent No. 1,173,912, dated February 29, 1916. Infringement is asserted since the cancellation, February 26, 1916, by mutual consent of a license to manufacture and sell the eyeglasses in question; the defendant continuing to…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. ADT v. Bay State Optical Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1915

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Textile Mach. Works v. Louis Hirsch Textile Machines, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API