Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co. v. Gould Coupler Co.
District Court, W.D. New York
In Equity. Suit by the Safety Car Heating & Lighting Company against the Gould Coupler Company. On final hearing. Decree for complainant.
1Opinion
On Rehearing.
Duell, Warfield & Duell, of New York City, for plaintiff.
Kenyon & Kenyon, of New York City (Walter C. Noyes, Wm. Houston Kenyon, and Richard Eyre, all.of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.
HAZEL, District Judge.
Considering this case in connection with various matters argued on the rehearing, I think that I failed in my original opinion to sufficiently differentiate the Thompson patent in suit from the prior Turbayne patent, No. 760,714, the Bliss patents, Nos. 799,516 and 799,520, and Bliss Bulletin No. 20, and therefore, for the sake of clarity, I am filing this…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Bates v. CoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Parks v. BoothSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Fowler & Wolfe Mfg. Co. v. McCrum-Howell Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914
- Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co. v. United States Light & Heating Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 1914
- Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co. v. United States Lighting & Heating Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1915