Safe-Cabinet Co. v. Globe-Wernicke Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Suit by the Safe-Cabinet Company against the Globe-Wernicke Company. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. The Safe-Cabinet Company is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Ohio and has its principal place of business in the dty of Marietta in that state.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Suit by the Safe-Cabinet Company against the Globe-Wernicke Company. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. The Safe-Cabinet Company is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Ohio and has its principal place of business in the dty of Marietta in that state. Tho Globo-Wernicke Company is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Ohio and has its principal place of business in the city of Cincinnati. It also has an established place…
1Opinion of the CourtRogers, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). [1] The first question is as to the validity of the patent in suit. The court below dismissed the bill, on the ground that the claims in suit are invalid, unless perhaps restricted to the exact device shown in the application; the court being doubtful whether such restriction is permis-' sible. If, however, such restriction be permissible, the court was satisfied there was no infringement.
The patent in suit is for “new and useful improvements in metallic structures.” In the specification the patentee states:
- “My invention relates to improvements in…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Charles Green Co. v. Henry P. Adams Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917
- Wege v. Safe-Cabinet Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1918
- Safe Cabinet Co. v. Globe-Wernicke Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1933